Davis v. State
48 So. 3d 176
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Davis appeals probation revocation and sentence related to two alleged probation violations: burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft.
- Hubing testified his efficiency behind a fenced yard was burglarized; items including a bicycle, computer, DVD player, headphones, class ring, and camera were missing; only the bicycle was recovered.
- Aldrich, the landlord, saw a man with Hubing’s bicycle in his fenced yard and in the back alley; police later found Davis with a bicycle matching the description a few blocks away.
- Aldrich could not make a positive in-court ID at the probation violation hearing; officers testified Davis matched the prior description.
- The trial court denied defense motions challenging proof of burglary and grand theft, and found Davis violated probation
- The appellate court held the grand theft conviction was improper due to insufficient value evidence and remanded for further proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burglary proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Davis | Davis | Burglary supported by greater-weight evidence |
| Sufficiency of value for grand theft | State | Davis | Value insufficient; grand theft not proven; petit theft possible |
| Remand remedy for probation revocation | State | Davis | Remand for further proceedings consistent with Ubiles |
Key Cases Cited
- Ubiles v. State, 23 So.3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation; must prove violation by greater weight)
- Shepard v. State, 939 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (probation revocation standard guidance)
- Collins v. State, 446 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (revocation requires sufficient evidence of offense)
- D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (value may be proven by various factors; not solely item count)
- Kerr v. State, 954 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (unexplained possession of stolen goods supports theft and burglary inference)
- Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (value proof for theft considerations)
- T.S.R. v. State, 596 So.2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (context on value and theft elements)