Schultz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schultz v. State

105 So. 3d 1280, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1538, 2013 WL 380265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-853

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 So. 3d 1280 (Schultz 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

Schultz v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1538, 2013 WL 380265 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Michael Schultz was convicted of armed burglary and grand theft, and he appeals, raising three issues. Of the three issues we find merit in only the third, that the State failed to provide sufficient proof of the value of the items taken during the burglary to support the charge of third-degree grand theft (greater than $300 but less than $5000).¹ See Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from, on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980). We affirm Mr. Schultz’s conviction for armed burglary, the subject of his first two issues. However, we reluctantly conclude that we are required to reverse Mr. Schultz’s conviction for grand theft because of our supreme court’s rationale and holding in Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla.2011), as discussed in this court’s opinion in Colletti v. State, 74 So.3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The application of this precedent to the facts established on the record of this case requires a determination that the minimum value necessary to establish grand theft was not met. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction for that offense and direct that a conviction for petit theft of the first degree² be entered. On remand, Mr. Schultz shall be resentenced accordingly.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

SILBERMAN, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Michael Schultz was convicted of armed burglary and grand theft, and he appeals, raising three issues. Of the three issues we find merit in only the third, that the State failed to provide sufficient proof of the value of the items taken during the burglary to support the charge of third-degree grand theft (greater than $300 but less than $5000).¹ See Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from, on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980). We affirm Mr. Schultz’s conviction for armed burglary, the subject of his first two issues. However, we reluctantly conclude that we are required to reverse Mr. Schultz’s conviction for grand theft because of our supreme court’s rationale and holding in Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla.2011), as discussed in this court’s opinion in Colletti v. State, 74 So.3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The application of this precedent to the facts established on the record of this case requires a determination that the minimum value necessary to establish grand theft was not met. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction for that offense and direct that a conviction for petit theft of the first degree² be entered. On remand, Mr. Schultz shall be resentenced accordingly.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

SILBERMAN, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 3d 1280, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1538, 2013 WL 380265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack