From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2001
806 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

holding that the State's failure to prove value of property stolen required reversal of adjudication of delinquency

Summary of this case from Pena v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D00-4271

Opinion filed October 26, 2001.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


E.R. challenges his delinquency adjudication for burglary and grand theft. We disagree with his contention that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove the burglary charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and we affirm that adjudication without further discussion. However, we reverse E.R.'s adjudication for third-degree grand theft because the State did not prove that the value of the stolen property equaled or exceeded $300. See § 812.014(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). The State's failure to prove the value element of third-degree grand theft is fundamental error and may be raised for the first time on appeal.T.E.J. v. State, 749 So.2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On remand, the circuit court shall reduce the grand theft charge to second-degree petit theft under section 812.014(3)(a).

We affirm the court's restitution order.

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

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.


Summaries of

E.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2001
806 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

holding that the State's failure to prove value of property stolen required reversal of adjudication of delinquency

Summary of this case from Pena v. State

reversing third-degree grand theft conviction as fundamental error, relying onT.E.J., because the State failed to prove that the value of the property exceeded $300 and ordering the conviction reduced to second-degree petit theft

Summary of this case from F.B. v. State
Case details for

E.R. v. State

Case Details

Full title:E.R., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 26, 2001

Citations

806 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Stanford v. State

Moreover Stanford correctly points out the fundamental nature of such error includes the state's failure to…

Pena v. State

This is not a situation where the State charged a crime that was totally unsupported by the evidence, or…