Stamper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stamper v. State

101 So. 3d 918, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20584, 2012 WL 5969620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2012

DocketNo. 5D11-3785

StatusPublished

This text of 101 So. 3d 918 (Stamper 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

Stamper v. State, 101 So. 3d 918, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20584, 2012 WL 5969620 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Stamper appeals his convictions for burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. We affirm the burglary convictions without further [919]*919comment, but reverse the grand theft conviction. As to the grand theft charge, Stamper correctly argues that the State failed to prove that the value of the property stolen was more than $800 on the date of the crime, as required for a conviction on this charge. See, e.g., Mansfield v. State, 954 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court is directed to adjudicate Stamper guilty of the lesser offense of petit theft, and to resentence Stamper on this charge only.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Stamper appeals his convictions for burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. We affirm the burglary convictions without further [919]*919comment, but reverse the grand theft conviction. As to the grand theft charge, Stamper correctly argues that the State failed to prove that the value of the property stolen was more than $800 on the date of the crime, as required for a conviction on this charge. See, e.g., Mansfield v. State, 954 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court is directed to adjudicate Stamper guilty of the lesser offense of petit theft, and to resentence Stamper on this charge only.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 3d 918, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20584, 2012 WL 5969620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamper-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack