M.K.L. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.K.L. v. State

662 So. 2d 1348, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12112, 1995 WL 681296

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1995

DocketNo. 94-03479

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 662 So. 2d 1348 (M.K.L. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.K.L. v. State, 662 So. 2d 1348, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12112, 1995 WL 681296 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order withholding adjudication and sentencing her to 180 days of community control. We agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of grand theft, and reverse her conviction for that offense. We find no error in appellant’s conviction and sentence on the burglary charge and, therefore, affirm that conviction.

In order to establish grand theft, the state must prove that the property taken has a value of $300 or more. § 812.014(l)(c)l, Fla. Stat. (1993). The only evidence presented by the state was that a radar detector and wallet were taken from the victim’s vehicle. Since there was no evidence that the property was worth $300 or more, the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of grand theft. M.H. v. State, 614 So.2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for grand theft is reduced to petit theft.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order withholding adjudication and sentencing her to 180 days of community control. We agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of grand theft, and reverse her conviction for that offense. We find no error in appellant’s conviction and sentence on the burglary charge and, therefore, affirm that conviction.

In order to establish grand theft, the state must prove that the property taken has a value of $300 or more. § 812.014(l)(c)l, Fla. Stat. (1993). The only evidence presented by the state was that a radar detector and wallet were taken from the victim’s vehicle. Since there was no evidence that the property was worth $300 or more, the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of grand theft. M.H. v. State, 614 So.2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for grand theft is reduced to petit theft.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 So. 2d 1348, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12112, 1995 WL 681296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mkl-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack