This post deals with an opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida – Fourth District: Walker v. State, 2016 WL 2745011 (2016).
The court begins by explaining that “[t]he issue in this appeal is whether
there was sufficient evidence of the value of a stolen laptop to support
appellant's conviction for third-degree grand theft.” Walker
v. State, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that Walker (“appellant”)
broke into a house and stole a Dell
laptop in August 2013. The victim testified that the laptop had a value of $800
because she purchased it for that amount in 2012.
Appellant moved for a judgment of
acquittal on the grand theft charge, arguing that the state presented
insufficient evidence as to the value of the laptop. The trial court denied the
motion. After a jury verdict, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of
burglary of a dwelling and grand theft.
On appeal, appellant challenges only
his conviction for grand theft. He does not raise any issues with respect to
his burglary conviction.
Walker v. State,
supra.
The Court of Appeal began its analysis of Walker’s argument
by explaining that
[t]o establish third-degree grand
theft, the state must prove that the value of the stolen property at the time
of the theft was $300 or more. Florida Statutes §§ 812.012(10)(a)(1),
812.014(2)(c)(1) (2013).
`Absent direct testimony of the market
value of the property, proof may be established through the following factors:
original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general
condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or
construction.’ Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 920 (District
Court of Appeal of Florida – Fourth District 2014) (citation omitted). `Evidence
of the purchase price and age of the stolen item, without more, is
insufficient.’ Tindal v. State, supra.
Walker v. State,
supra.
Florida Statutes § 812.012(10)(a)(1) defines the concept of
“value” as it applies to “theft, robbery and related crimes”. More precisely, § 812.012(10)(a)(1) defines
“value” as “the market value of the property at the time and place of the
offense or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of
replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.”
And Florida Statutes § 812.014(2)(c)(1) defines “theft,” in
pertinent part, as follows:
(1) A person commits theft if he or she
knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of
another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right
to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or
her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the
property. . . .
The issue in this case, of course, was the value of the
stolen property, which would determine whether Walker was guilty of
third-degree grand theft or second-degree petit theft. Walker v. State, supra. As Wikipedia explains, in the United States
[g]rand
theft . . . is an expression used to designate theft that is large
in magnitude or serious in penological consequences. Grand theft is contrasted
with petty theft, theft that is of smaller magnitude or lesser seriousness. The
distinction between grand theft and petty theft presupposes the definition of theft generally.
. . .
[E]ach state establishes the
distinction between grand and petty theft for cases falling within its
jurisdiction. The distinction is generally established by statute, as are the
penological consequences. Most commonly, statutes establishing the distinction
between grand theft and petty theft do so on the basis of the value of the
money or property taken by the thief or lost by the victim. Most commonly, the
penological consequences of the distinction include the significant one that
grand theft can be treated as a felony, while petty theft is generally
treated as a misdemeanor.
As Wikipedia also explains, California, for example,
distinguishes between two types of
theft, grand theft and petty theft. Grand theft generally consists
of the theft of something of value over $950 (it can be money, labor or
property but is lower with respect to various specified property), while
petty theft is the default category for all other thefts. Grand
theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged
(depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony, while petty
theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding
six months in jail or both. . . .
Florida Statutes § 812.014(c)(2), which you can find here, defines
grand theft of the third degree, which is also a felony of the third degree as
cases in which the property stolen is:
1. Valued at $300 or more, but less
than $5,000.
2. Valued at $5,000 or more, but less
than $10,000.
3. Valued at $10,000 or more, but less
than $20,000.
4. A will, codicil, or other
testamentary instrument.
5. A firearm. . . .
Florida Statutes § 812.014(2)(c) goes on to define a number
of other activities that also qualify as grand theft of the third degree, but
none of them could apply here, e.g., they include theft of motor vehicles, fire
extinguishers, farm animals and stop signs.
Getting back to the opinion, the Court of Appeal explained
that
[t[o establish third-degree grand
theft, the state must prove that the value of the stolen property at the time
of the theft was $300 or more. §§ 812.012(10(a)(1), 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla.
Stat. (2013).
`Absent direct testimony of the market
value of the property, proof may be established through the following factors:
original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general
condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or
construction.’ Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 920 (Florida
District Court of Appeal 2014) (citation omitted). “Evidence of the purchase
price and age of the stolen item, without more, is insufficient.’ Id.
Walker v. State,
supra.
The Court of Appeal therefore held that
Tindal is dispositive on
this issue. In that case, the victim testified to the purchase price of a
laptop in 2007 and the amount it would have cost to replace it two years later
when it was stolen. This court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's
motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge, and instructed the
trial court to reduce the conviction to second-degree petit theft.
Walker v. State,
supra.
The court then explained that,
[l]ike in Tindal, here
the state introduced evidence of only the purchase price and the age of the
laptop. There was no other evidence of market value such as the manner in which
the item was used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of
depreciation.
The state argues that unlike in Tindal, here
the laptop was stolen only one year after its purchase, whereas in Tindal it
was stolen two years after its purchase. We find the difference between a
one-year-old laptop and a two-year-old laptop is not significant enough to the
issue of the value of the stolen item at the time of the theft. `Electrical
components like .. . . computers . . . are subject to accelerated obsolescence
because manufacturers are constantly releasing new, improved technology at lower
prices.’ Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 692 (Florida District
Court of Appeal 2010).
In sum, because the evidence was
insufficient to establish the value of the laptop at the time of the theft, we
reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand for entry of a conviction for
second-degree petit theft.
Because appellant does not contest his
burglary conviction, that conviction stands.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a
conviction and sentence for second-degree petit theft.
Walker v. State,
supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment