LECOSTER GARLAND, 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.
Lecoster Garland was convicted of conspiracy to commit felony breaking and entering, breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and petit larceny. The Florida appellate court affirmed the petit larceny conviction but reversed the two felony convictions because the state failed to prove the stolen property's value exceeded $100 using proper valuation methods.
The state's evidence of property value was insufficient because it relied on historical cost or depreciated value rather than market value at the time of theft. The felony convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny must be reversed, and the appellant should be adjudged guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit misdemeanor or petit larceny instead, or granted a new trial.
[1] Proof of property value based solely on cost several years prior to theft or depreciated value according to a depreciation schedule is insufficient to establish felony la…
[2] Proper proof of value in larceny cases is generally market value at the time of the theft, unless the property has some intrinsic or peculiar value.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The proof of value was based upon cost several years prior to the theft or upon depreciated value according to a depreciation schedule which the owner used. These two methods have been held insufficient as a basis to determine the value of property in a case of this nature.”
Establishes that the state's valuation methods were improper under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, breaking and entering a building with inten…
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 Conspiracy To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit, breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, breaking and entering a building with intent to commit grand larceny, and petit larceny and sentenced to five years, seven and one-half years, and six months, respectively.
With reference to the two felony convictions, we find the evidence adduced by the state was insufficient as a basis for finding the value of the property in question exceeded one hundred dollars. The proof of value was based upon cost several years prior to the theft or upon depreciated value according to a depreciation schedule which the owner used. These two methods have been held insufficient as a basis to determine the value of property in a case of this nature. Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 68. The proper proof of value in larceny cases is generally market value at the time of the theft, unless the property has some intrinsic or peculiar value. Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937); Lambert v. State, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is affirmed as to Count III of the information and reversed as to Counts I and II of the information with directions that, upon the state’s election, the appellant be adjudged guilty of the following two felonies : (a) conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit, breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor (F.S. § 833.04, F.S.A.), and (b) breaking and entering a building with intent to commit petit larceny (F.S. § 810.05, F.S.Á.), and sentenced accordingly, or in the alternative that he be granted a new trial on Counts I and II.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bohonowsky v. State, 336 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…RIAM. We reverse appellant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and remand with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser charge, conspiracy to commit a misdemean- or, to-wit: petit larceny. Garland v. State, 291 So. 2d 678 (4th DCA Fla.1974). The evidence presented at trial clearly proved that the value of the goods taken by appellants was less than $100. Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did stea…
-
Burman v. State, 316 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…th it. Otherwise, that essen [*301] tial issue should be given more attention in the preparation of the cases for trial. On the proof of value in larceny prosecutions see cases cited at 20 Fla.Jur., Larceny, § 75, and Garland v. State, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 678. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1937)