HOWARD v. STATE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Lee HOWARD, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 3D18-155 & 3D18-192

Decided: March 20, 2019

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant/cross appellee. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee/cross appellant.

The trial court properly found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of petit theft. See J.P. v. State, 35 So.3d 180, 181-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that a principal was competent to testify as to the value of stolen projectors where the principal had “ordered the projectors, and [was] responsible for ․ purchasing and maintaining of all the school's equipment and materials”). The trial court also correctly determined that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a conviction of criminal mischief in excess of $ 1,000. See A.S. v. State, 91 So.3d 270, 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that testimony regarding repair estimate for damaged vehicle should have been stricken where the actual estimates were not admitted into evidence and absent such testimony, there was no competent, substantial evidence demonstrating the element of value).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network