IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., A CHILD, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the value of the stolen jacket for a grand theft charge, but sufficient for petit theft.
A juvenile was found delinquent based on stealing a classmate's leather jacket, charged as grand theft. The sole evidence of the jacket's value was it…
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 Proof Of Value cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges the court’s determination that he committed a delinquent act by stealing a classmate’s leather jacket. He contends only that the state failed to prove the jacket’s value to support the charge of grand theft that was used to support the finding of delinquency. We agree that the evidence did not support the charge of grand theft, but conclude that it did support the lesser-ineluded offense of petit theft. We, therefore, remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the lesser-ineluded offense of petit theft in support of the delinquency finding.
The sole evidence of value was provided by the victim and was based solely on the item’s initial cost. There was no evidence of the jacket’s age, condition or any other factor that might bear on the jacket’s value at the time of the offense. While the value of the jacket was not properly established, that does not prevent the court from finding that appellant committed a delinquent act since the state did prove the lesser-included offense of petit theft, which will also support a finding of delinquency. See B.D. v. State, 412 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 39.01(13), Fla. Stat. (1995).
While we recognize that the consequence of reducing appellant’s offense to petit theft should also result in a reduction of his sentence, appellant has completed serving the sentence imposed and is no longer a juvenile. The court has, therefore, lost jurisdiction of appellant and can effect no meaningful correction of his sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of grand theft and remand for a correction of appellant’s record to reflect he was found to have committed petit theft to support the delinquency petition.
SCHOONOVER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ed in the information, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted. See, generally, Audano v. State, 674 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hutchinson v. State, 453 So. 2d 900, 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also J.P. v. State, 681 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(evidence of value did not support charge of grand theft, but did support the lesser-included offense of petit theft; cause remanded for correction of judgment to reflect lesser-included offense of petit theft in support of d…
Authorities Cited
- B. D. v. State, 412 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)