MACEDO v. STATE (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Marcelino MACEDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-2484

Decided: November 04, 2020

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

We affirm appellant's conviction for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of property valued at $100 or more from a dwelling or enclosed curtilage, as well as tampering with physical evidence. While he contends that there was no probable cause to support his arrest, which requires suppression of the evidence seized, we disagree and conclude that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause to detain and arrest appellant.

Although the court erred in admitting the victim's testimony of the value of a watch which was taken, as it was based upon an appraisal which was hearsay, see Harris v. State, 288 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), any error was harmless. The State provided sufficient competent evidence of the value of other items taken in the burglary, particularly a power washer, which met the statutory threshold. See, e.g., K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Per Curiam.

Warner, Gerber and Artau, JJ., concur.

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Out of date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