Pierce v. State, 93-3747
| Decision Date | 10 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-3747,93-3747 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1702 Robert Christopher PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
In this appeal from a conviction for grand theft, we reduce the conviction to petit theft and remand for resentencing.
The defendant was charged by information with armed robbery. The charging document described the articles taken merely as "jewelry, money, shoes and car keys," without any allegation as to the value of the stolen property. During trial at the jury charge conference, when he became aware that the judge intended to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, defense counsel objected to any instructions on offenses other than the armed robbery as charged.
Before submitting the case to the jury, the trial judge gave an instruction that, if it determined that the principal charge of robbery had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should decide whether the defendant was guilty of any lesser included offenses, one of which was grand theft. The crime of grand theft, he further instructed, required a determination that the value of the property taken exceeded $300. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant was adjudicated guilty, only as to the lesser included offense of grand theft. He appeals. We reverse.
A charge of robbery unavoidably includes the elements of the crime of petit theft, making petit theft a necessarily included offense of robbery. Compare Sec. 812.13 with Sec. 812.014(1), (2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1991); J.C.B. v. State, 512 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988). An essential element of the crime of grand theft is the value of the goods stolen. See Secs. 812.014(2)(a), (b) and (c), Fla.Stat. (1991) (). The element of value sets grand theft apart from the crimes of robbery or petit theft. 512 So.2d at 1074.
It is only where the charging document sufficiently alleges the appropriate value that grand theft becomes a permissive lesser included offense of the charge of robbery. 512 So.2d at 1074-1075. Where the only charge is robbery, the state can preserve its right to a lesser included conviction for grand theft only by including in the information an allegation that sufficiently states the value of the property taken. 512 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. State, 95-0706
...to an essential element of that offense, absent a waiver, affirmative conduct, or other exceptional circumstances." Pierce v. State, 641 So.2d 439, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citation omitted). Because an element of aggravated battery, namely great bodily harm, was not alleged in the informat......
-
Wilson v. State, 94-2204
...for grand theft, the information must contain an allegation that sufficiently states the value of the property taken. Pierce v. State, 641 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The information charged Wilson with unlawfully taking "money and jewelry" with the intent to permanently deprive. Like th......
-
Pereira v. State, 5D09-2942.
...value of the property taken and the requirement that the property be taken from a dwelling. The defendant cites to Pierce v. State, 641 So.2d 439, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), receded from on other grounds by Tolbert v. State, 679 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), to support his claim of In Pierce......