T.D., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE (2019)

After an adjudicatory hearing, T.D. was found guilty of battery and first-degree petit theft of $100 or more. She raises several issues on appeal, of which we find one to be meritorious.

The trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the value of the victim's stolen cell phone was at least $100. See C.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that state failed to prove value of stolen property where it did not present direct testimony of value or, alternatively, evidence of: (1) original market cost; (2) manner in which property was used; (3) condition of property; and (4) percentage of depreciation of property since purchase). On remand, the trial court is instructed to amend its disposition order to reflect that T.D. was found guilty under section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), of second-degree petit theft. The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions.

PER CURIAM.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.