G.B. v. State
123 So. 3d 660
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- G.B. appeals an order withholding adjudication and placing him on juvenile probation for first-degree petit theft.
- The State alleged grand theft of property valued at $300 or more but less than $5000 based on two school laptops.
- At adjudicatory hearing, laptops were shown to have been purchased for $1100–$1500; later range given as $800–$1500; condition uncertain.
- Trial court granted dismissal as to grand theft and found value sufficient for first-degree petit theft ($100–$299).
- Court found GB delinquent for first-degree petit theft based on belief that two used laptops are worth more than $100.
- Appeals court reverses and remands for entry of a disposition finding GB committed second-degree petit theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requires proof of value for first-degree petit theft? | GB contends value not proven beyond reasonable doubt. | GB seeks second-degree petit theft where value need not be proven. | Value proof required for first-degree petit theft; lack of evidence mandates reduction. |
| Can trier of fact determine only a minimum value when value cannot be ascertained? | State argues minimum value acceptable under 812.012(10)(b). | GB contends no minimum value unless value cannot be ascertained truly. | Minimum value must be tied to impossibility to ascertain value; not applicable here. |
| Was it impossible to ascertain the value of stolen laptops? | State asserts valuation could be determined from purchase price. | GB argues valuation was not proven and not impossible to determine. | Record shows valuation not impossible to ascertain; remand appropriate. |
| Disposition on remand: should be second-degree petit theft? | State urges upholding first-degree petit theft if value proved. | GB supports second-degree petit theft due to lack of proven value. | Remand to enter disposition of second-degree petit theft. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla.2011) (minimum value allowed only when value cannot be ascertained; value must be impossible to determine)
- Colletti v. State, 74 So.3d 497 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (valuation not impossible; cannot determine minimum value if ascertainable)
- Olivera v. State, 117 So.3d 433 (Fla.4th DCA 2013) (reverses when stolen property value not proven; directs second-degree petit theft when appropriate)