C.N.W., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
C.N.W. was convicted of grand theft and burglary arising from a parking lot theft incident. The court affirmed her burglary conviction based on sufficient evidence of aiding and abetting, but reversed her grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of property value and reduced it to petit theft.
The court affirmed the burglary conviction based on sufficient evidence of aiding and abetting through appellant's presence and participation with the group. The court reversed the grand theft conviction for insufficient evidence of the property's value and reduced the conviction to petit theft, as grand theft requires property valued at least $300.
[1] A person can be convicted of burglary as an aider or abettor based on their presence with a group, their actions in concert with the group, and evidence of intent to part…
[2] A conviction for grand theft requires proof of the value of the stolen property, and absent such proof, the conviction may be reduced to petit theft.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This assistance evidenced an intent to participate and amounted to aiding and abetting.”
Establishes the standard for aiding and abetting liability based on presence and intent to participate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 1:00 a.m., a neighbor observed appellant and three other juveniles moving between vehicles at Woodlake Apartments. The group moved in concert betwe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges her convictions for grand theft and burglaiy. We affirm appellant’s burglary conviction because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence that she was aiding and abetting. However, we reverse appellant’s grand theft conviction for insufficient evidence of value, and reduce the conviction to petit theft.
Appellant and three other juveniles, two girls and a boy, were seen at 1:00 a.m. by a neighbor at the Woodlake Apartments moving from truck to truck and car to car, appearing to “mess with” items in the beds of the trucks. The group moved in concert until two stayed at one pickup and two walked over to another part of the parking lot. Two dome lights then came on in the other part of the parking lot, and the two who had stayed at the one pickup proceeded to a red car. This was the car that was burglarized. It looked to the neighbor like the two at the red car were slim-jimming it. A wallet containing $32 and a radar detector were stolen from the red car. After the items were taken from the red ear, the group again began moving back and forth between other vehicles on the lot. The neighbor then heard glass breaking and called 911.
Appellant asserts that the perpetrator was McCain, the one male, and McCain confirms this. She also maintains that she attempted to discourage McCain from his planned activities, and McCain confirms this also. However, the record supports the court’s finding that appellant was an aider or abettor in the burglary based on her admitted presence with the group and the neighbor’s testimony that the group primarily went from car to car as a group. This assistance evidenced an intent to participate and amounted to aiding and abetting. Evans v. State, 643 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 652 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1995).
Appellant also challenges her conviction for grand theft. Since there is no record evidence of the value of the property stolen, and grand theft requires that the value of the property be at least $300, the grand theft conviction is reduced to petit theft. M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
CAMPBELL, AC.J., and PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutton v. State, 128 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…. See Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881, 887 (Fla.2011); see also Colletti, 74 So. 3d at 499. We therefore reverse Sutton’s grand theft conviction and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment and sentence for petit theft. See C.N.W. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reducing grand theft conviction to petit theft where there was no record evidence of the value of the stolen property). Sutton also argues that the trial court erred in placing him on drug offender probation because burgla…
-
T.E. v. State, 709 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. A.B.G. v. State, 586 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); C.N.W. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).…
Authorities Cited
- Evans v. State, 643 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)