State v. Pina

487 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 819
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 9, 1986
Docket85-1987
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 487 So. 2d 351 (State v. Pina) 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
State v. Pina, 487 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 819 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

487 So.2d 351 (1986)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Michael Phillip PINA, Appellee.

No. 85-1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 9, 1986.
Rehearing and Rehearing Denied May 7, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 7, 1986.

WALDEN, Judge.

Michael Phillip Pina shoplifted a stereo cassette player from K-Mart. It had retail *352 value of $145.00. He was tried and found guilty of grand theft, a third degree felony with a maximum penalty of five years.

At sentencing the trial court departed downward from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Pina to a term of three years. Written reasons therefor were these:

Departure from the sentencing guidelines for the following reasons: (1) maximum sentence is 5 years; (2) property stolen retail value $145.00.

The state appeals and contends that Pina should have been sentenced to five years. We disagree and affirm the downward departure.

The statutory definition of the crime committed by Pina is satisfied, "if the property stolen is: (1) valued at $100.00 or more, but less than $20,000.00."[1] Here the spread between the two figures is obviously large with the $145.00 value of the property stolen by Pina being at the bottom of the spectrum. We are of the opinion that the insignificance, relatively speaking, of the value of the item taken could constitute a clear, convincing, and sufficient reason for the trial court to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines. See State v. Villalovo a/k/a Laso, 481 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985).

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

Related

State v. Lacey
553 So. 2d 778 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. Lisk
523 So. 2d 1260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. Myers
515 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Johnson
512 So. 2d 1116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Lane
508 So. 2d 572 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Demas
512 So. 2d 214 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Sinclair
505 So. 2d 694 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Northern
503 So. 2d 1001 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 So. 2d 351, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pina-fladistctapp-1986.