Frazier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frazier v. State

135 So. 3d 444, 2014 WL 982697, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3751

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Frazier v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17420 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 2014·No. No. 5D12-253·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling, but reverse the judgment for grand theft because the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the items at the time of the theft. Smith v. State, 955 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). We, therefore, remand for entry of a judgment for petit theft pursuant to section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling, but reverse the judgment for grand theft because the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the items at the time of the theft. Smith v. State, 955 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). We, therefore, remand for entry of a judgment for petit theft pursuant to section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Frazier v. State, 135 So. 3d 444, 2014 WL 982697, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3751 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

135 So. 3d 444 (Frazier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related