DH v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
DH v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: ROD LEE BRUCE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-05-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ROD LEE BRUCE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176, 178-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (in a case involving theft of computer, DVD player, headphones, camera, and bicycle which had a total purchase cost of more than $1,000, and a class ring with an estimated current value of $50, rejecting state’s argument that “based upon the number and nature of items stolen in this case, a minimum value of at least $300 could be found”); D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (in a case involving theft of electronics, among other items, 2 rejecting “the State’s argument that the description of the items sto…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
“Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value or through *180 evidence of the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase.” D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860 , 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucky v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See C.G.H. v. State, 968 So.2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (purchase price of camera a year earlier, without more, not sufficient to establish value of $300 or more); D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (state failed to establish value of $300 or more of DVD player, computers, Sony PlayStation2, cameras and other items where victim testified to purchase price of some items; court rejected argument that “sheer number and type” of items established value over $300); Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191, 1193-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (evidence that CB radio worth $249 when it was purc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
E.g., D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 588-89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Sellers v. State, 838 So.2d 661, 662-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Gilbert v. State, 817 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191, 1193-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
cited Cited "see" GOLDBOURNE ONEIL HENRY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis, 48 So. 3d at 180 (citing D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
discussed Cited "see" Colletti v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting State's argument that the sheer number of items, including DVD player, a Sony Playstation, and cameras, was sufficient to prove that the stolen items had a value that met the grand theft minimum); see also A.D. v. State, 30 So.3d 676, 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (declining State's invitation to find a minimum value for stolen items, i.e., a cell phone, a fishing rod, an iPod, a truck radio, and a boat battery charger, sufficient to meet the grand theft threshold when the State presented slim evidence of the condition of the items);…
cited Cited "see" JM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Soderman v. State, 844 So.2d 823, 823-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Raynor v. State, 341 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
cited Cited "see" J. M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Soderman v. State, 844 So.2d 823, 823-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Raynor v. State, 341 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zanterrial Dejohn Carter v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also D.H. v. State, 3 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting the State’s argument that “the description of the items stolen, by their sheer number and type, indicates a value over $300”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carter v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
K.W. v. State, 983 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“ ‘Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value or through evidence of the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase.’ ” (quoting Pickett v. *851 State, 839 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
D.H., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D03-434.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb 6, 2004.
864 So. 2d 588
Fulmer.
Published

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

FULMER, Judge.

D.H. was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of the third degree. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the grand theft charge, arguing that the State failed to prove the value of the stolen property. We agree that the testimony was insufficient to meet the State's burden of proof and, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft.

The State was required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). "Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value or through evidence of the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase." Pickett, 839 So.2d at 861-62.

[*589] The victim of the theft testified that her home was broken into and numerous items were taken, including a DVD player, computers, a Sony PlayStation 2, video games, jewelry, matchbox cars, baseball cards, cameras, and children's toys. She had paid $199.99 for the PlayStation 2 and paid between $14.99 and $39.99 for the various games. She thought she had six or seven games. The matchbox cars ranged in price from 69 cents to 99 cents each and she had 100 cars. No other testimony was adduced concerning the value of the items taken.

Although there was some testimony of the original cost of some of the items taken, there was no testimony of fair market value, of the manner in which the items were used, of the condition or quality, nor the percentage of depreciation. A number of cases have been reversed under circumstances similar to these. See Pickett, 839 So.2d 860; Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Soderman v. State, 844 So.2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); I.T. v. State, 796 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Randolph v. State, 608 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We reject the State's argument that the description of the items stolen, by their sheer number and type, indicates a value over $300. See Doane v. State, 847 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.