EZACURAS DAWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 sufficient to prove the market value of the stolen property exceeded $100 for grand larceny, but the "at hard labor" portion of the sentences was erroneous.
The defendant was convicted of burglary and grand larceny. The defendant appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the market value of …
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 Market Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
[*58] PER CURIAM.
Ezacuras Dawson, defendant-appellant, seeks reversal of his conviction for burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny, and sentences of 15 years imprisonment at hard labor on the burglary count and consecutive 5 years imprisonment at hard labor as to the grand larceny count.
Dawson first contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction for grand larceny because the prosecution failed to prove that the market value of the property at the time of taking was $100 or more.
While market value at the time of the theft is the proper test, purchase price and other circumstances can be sufficient evidence of the market value in the appropriate case. Pickles v. State, 313 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1975).
Upon being questioned with respect to the market value of the items stolen (a bicycle, television, clock-radio, watch, and turntable), the victim testified that her bicycle was bought for about $60 and she added improvements bringing the market value of the bike to approximately $70; she purchased her television at an auction for $35 but it actually was worth more; the radio was purchased for $60 and was in good working condition; she valued her watch and turntable to be worth $30 and $100 respectively at the time of the theft. Thus, we conclude that there was ample sufficient evidence presented to prove that the market value of the property at the time of the taking exceeded $100.
Defendant Dawson also argues that the “at hard labor” portion of the sentences is erroneous. We agree and strike the words “at hard labor” from each of the sentences. See McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
In all other respects the conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holman v. State, 740 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…us, where the appellant’s commission of the charged offenses occurred in 1975, the requirement of hard labor constitutes an illegal condition of his sentence. See Zygadlo v. State, 676 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Dawson v. State, 360 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We therefore affirm the appellant’s convictions and imprisonment sentences but remand with instructions that the hard labor condition of his sentence be stricken.…
-
Morejon v. State, 394 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…the court places him on probation, if he violates his probation the court can sentence him to a term in excess of the provi [*1102] sions of the original bargain”.2 (5) As to the sentence at “hard labor”, this was clearly erroneous. Dawson v. State, 360 So. 2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Flaugher v. State, 373 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Page v. State, 376 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). We therefore strike from each of the sentences the words “at hard labor”, and affirm the conviction and sentences as modified…
-
C.W. v. State, 642 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pickles v. State, 313 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1975); Massey v. State, 575 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Dawson v. State, 360 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Pickles v. State, 313 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1975)