264 So. 3d 182
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Goldbourne Henry was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft after a co-defendant (the primary witness) testified against him following an open plea.
- The witness drove Henry and another man to an apartment complex and acted as lookout while Henry and the other entered an apartment and removed a television and other items. Stolen property was later found at the witness’s home.
- Police searched the witness’s phone by consent and found 22 calls during the burglary timeframe to a contact labeled "GB," which the witness said referred to Henry.
- Investigators lifted Henry’s fingerprint from a soda can recovered from a bedroom closet in the burgled residence.
- At trial the victim only estimated original purchase prices for the stolen items; no testimony was provided about the items’ condition, age, depreciation, or present market value.
- The trial court admitted a photograph of the witness’s iPhone contact screen over hearsay objections and imposed a $400 public defender fee without giving notice or making required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for grand theft (value ≥ $300) | State: aggregate of items exceeded $300; victim’s purchase estimates suffice | Henry: victim’s guesstimates without condition/market testimony are insufficient | Reversed grand theft; entered judgment for petit theft and remanded for resentencing |
| Admissibility of iPhone contact-photo (hearsay) | State: photo admitted for non-hearsay, limited purpose of linking witness and Henry | Henry: photo is hearsay and inadmissible to prove phone number/identity | Photo admissible for limited purpose (linking the witness and Henry); limiting instruction appropriate |
| Public defender fee ($400) | State: fee imposed | Henry: fee exceeded statutory presumptive amount without notice, hearing, or factual findings | Fee vacated; error to impose $400 without notice/hearing and findings; remand for resentencing |
| Sufficiency of identification evidence (fingerprint, witness calls) | State: fingerprint and phone contacts tie Henry to burglary | Henry: challenged sufficiency on various grounds (main focus was value) | Conviction for burglary and other issues besides grand theft and fee affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
- Mansfield v. State, 954 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (two-pronged test for proving stolen-property value)
- Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (factors to establish market value absent direct testimony)
- I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (competency and sufficiency of value evidence)
- Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (purchase-price guess insufficient to prove present value for electronics)
- Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (speculation cannot be aggregated to meet value threshold)
- Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (purchase price alone insufficient to prove current value)
- D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (limits on aggregating speculative value evidence)
- Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (address-book entries admissible to show association)