Drakes v. State, 79-1705

Decision Date20 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-1705,79-1705
Citation400 So.2d 487
PartiesFrankie Lee DRAKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. /T4-697.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Chief, App. Division, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Gregory C. Smith and Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

Appellant burglarized both the Haynes house and the Turner house, in each case stealing property which included a gun or guns. As to each of the two burglaries, appellant was charged with two grand thefts under section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979): one theft under section 812.014(2)(b)1 (in which count the property stolen was alleged to be valued at $100 or more), and the second theft under section 812.014(2)(b)3 (in which count the property stolen was alleged to be a firearm). We agree that the theft of a firearm and other property at the same time and place as one continuous act or transaction is a single theft offense. Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559, 28 A.L.R.2d 1179 (Fla.1951); Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Avilia v. State, 278 So.2d 298 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); Russell v. State, 107 So.2d 801 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). However, appellant failed to timely present his double jeopardy defense by motion to dismiss the information, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b), and it was waived. Chapman v. State, 389 So.2d 1065 (Fla.5th DCA 1980).

The value of the property taken must be established as an essential element of the crime of grand larceny. Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974); Tribble v. State, 277 So.2d 559 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Smart v. State, 274 So.2d 577 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). The state attorney, attempting to prove value, elicited only testimony that all of the property stolen from the Turner house, including the gun, was worth between $1,500 and $1,700 and did not establish the value of the property separate from the gun. Neither did the state establish the value of the gun, which would have permitted its value to have been subtracted from the total value to establish the value of the property taken excluding the gun. Since the state chose to prosecute the appellant under a separate count for theft of the firearm, the value of the firearm must be excluded from the value of the remaining property. Therefore, the evidence of the value of the property stolen from the Turner house is insufficient to support the conviction of grand larceny. Suarez v. State, 136 So.2d 367 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). Accordi...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Rodriquez v. State, 82-570
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 1983
    ...uniformly held that an essential element of grand larceny is the value or nature of the property stolen. See, e.g., Drakes v. State, 400 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) ("The value of the property taken must be established as an essential element of the crime of grand larceny.") See also Butl......
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1982
    ...v. State, 401 So.2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). 10 See, e.g., Bass v. State, 380 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). 11 See, e.g., Drakes v. State, 400 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (theft of multiple items during one burglary held to be one theft); Castleberry v. State, 402 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 5th D......
  • State v. Miyazaki
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1982
    ...cert. denied, 381 U.S. 902, 85 S.Ct. 1446, 14 L.Ed.2d 284 (1965); Barker v. Ohio, 328 F.2d 582, 584 (6th Cir. 1964); Drakes v. State, 400 So.2d 487 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Hooks v. State, 138 Ga.App. 539, 540, 226 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1976); Carbonneau v. Warden of Nevada State Prison, 634 P.2d......
  • Akins v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 1984
    ...has been ultimately given in other proceedings on other grounds. 19 Garcia v. State, 444 So.2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Drakes v. State, 400 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. den., 411 So.2d 381 (Fla.1981); Chapman v. State, 389 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), explicitly hold that violati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT