Carter v. State
77 So. 3d 849
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Anthony Carter was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft.
- The State presented that Carter removed a TV from the victim ind residence, placed it in a car, and drove away.
- Victim testified the TV was a 29" flat-screen, purchased by the victim's girlfriend on a payment plan; exact cost unknown.
- There was no testimony as to the TV s make/model, present value, original cost, or depreciation.
- The State argued the evidence showed theft but failed to prove the value necessary for grand theft.
- The appellate court affirmed burglary conviction but reversed grand theft, remanding to reduce to petit theft and resent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved value for grand theft | Carter | Carter | Value not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for petit theft |
| Proper remedy when value evidence is deficient | State | Carter | Reverse grand theft; remand to convict petit theft and re-sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (value shown only by purchase price is insufficient)
- Davis v. State, 48 So.3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (no evidence of fair market value or depreciation; insufficient value)
- Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1974) (value element requires proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1991) (four-factor framework for determining market value)
- Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (value may be established via depreciation and other factors)
- Jones v. State, 958 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (state may not rely on mere quantity or nature to prove value)