DEVENISH v. STATE (2021)

Challenging his judgment and sentence for several offenses, including burglary of a dwelling armed with a firearm and grand theft of property valued at $300 or more, Appellant argues the trial court erred in concluding during its Richardson * inquiry that he suffered no prejudice from the State's discovery violation. Appellant also asserts the trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal on the count of grand theft because the State did not present evidence of the value of the stolen items at the time of the offense. We affirm the first issue without comment. As to the remaining issue, we reverse the conviction for grand theft because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the requisite threshold value of the property beyond a reasonable doubt.

At trial, to establish the value of the stolen property, the State presented only the owner's testimony of what he paid to purchase the items, along with photographs of the property. This was insufficient to prove the market value of the property was $300 or more “at the time and place of the offense.” See §§ 812.012(10)(a)1., 812.014(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2016). “The value of tangible personal property may be proved with evidence of the original purchase price, together with the percentage or amount of depreciation since the property's purchase, its manner of use, and its condition and quality.” Fritts v. State, 58 So. 3d 430, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861–62 (Fla. 2d DCA)). Although the State introduced evidence of what the owner paid for the items and photographs documenting the visual condition of the property—two wristwatches along with various electronic equipment including headphones, a video game system, a laptop computer, and a camera—there was no evidence establishing the amount of depreciation in value since the owner purchased the property. See, e.g., Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Electrical components like televisions, computers, and stereo systems are subject to accelerated obsolescence because manufacturers are constantly releasing new, improved technology at lower prices.”).

We reverse the conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand with directions to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft, and to resentence Appellant accordingly. Appellant's judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971).

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Makar, and Nordby, JJ., concur.