ER v. State, 2D00-4271.
| Decision Date | 26 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-4271.,2D00-4271. |
| Citation | 806 So.2d 529 |
| Parties | E.R., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
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(2)(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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FB v. State
...the "failure of proof on the essential element of value was fundamental error" and reversed. 749 So.2d at 558; accord E.R. v. State, 806 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing third-degree grand theft conviction as fundamental error, relying on T.E.J., because the State failed to prove tha......
-
Pena v. State
...(finding that the conviction imposed upon a crime totally unsupported by evidence constituted fundamental error); E.R. v. State, 806 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the State's failure to prove value of property stolen required reversal of adjudication of delinquency). Although t......
-
Stanford v. State, 3D01-2102.
...the state's failure to prove value where proof of such value is necessary to sustain a higher grade of offense. See E.R. v. State, 806 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); T.E.J. v. State, 749 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Thus, in this case, where the evidence established that Stanford received a......