Raynor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raynor v. State

341 So. 2d 998, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16163

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1503

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 341 So. 2d 998 (Raynor 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

Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16163 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny as proscribed by the then effective statute, section 810.01, Florida Statutes. In particular, the State failed to introduce evidence to demonstrate what the market value of the items taken was at the time of the theft. Platt v. State, 291 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The only pertinent evidence in this record came from the victim’s son who identified the items as being those taken in the burglary, further indicating the purchase price for one of the items which had been purchased some three years earlier. It is essential, under section 810.01, to show that the perpetrator’s intent at the time of the breaking was to steal property of the value of $100 or more by adducing proof of the market value at the time of the theft of the items taken. Platt v. State, supra; Gamble v. State, 210 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). This, the State failed to do.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of breaking and entering ■ with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny, is reduced pursuant to sec. 924.34, Florida Statutes, to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and the cause remanded to the trial court for impo[999]*999sition of sentence in accordance herewith. See Section 810.05, Florida Statutes.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny as proscribed by the then effective statute, section 810.01, Florida Statutes. In particular, the State failed to introduce evidence to demonstrate what the market value of the items taken was at the time of the theft. Platt v. State, 291 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The only pertinent evidence in this record came from the victim’s son who identified the items as being those taken in the burglary, further indicating the purchase price for one of the items which had been purchased some three years earlier. It is essential, under section 810.01, to show that the perpetrator’s intent at the time of the breaking was to steal property of the value of $100 or more by adducing proof of the market value at the time of the theft of the items taken. Platt v. State, supra; Gamble v. State, 210 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). This, the State failed to do.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of breaking and entering ■ with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny, is reduced pursuant to sec. 924.34, Florida Statutes, to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and the cause remanded to the trial court for impo[999]*999sition of sentence in accordance herewith. See Section 810.05, Florida Statutes.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 So. 2d 998, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raynor-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack