Case ID: so2d_212/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MANN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Larry MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Gary RANDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 67-253, 67-324.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
    June 28, 1968.
    
      Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Ray Tamargo, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellants.
    Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
   MANN, Judge.

The only testimony relative to value during the trial of these defendants for grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny is the following:

“Q. Would you tell the Jury what was missing?
A. A stereo, two TV’s, á Hallicrafter ship-to-shore radio, a watch, some records.
Q. All right. And what value did you place on all of this ?
A. Eight hundred.
Q. Eight hundred dollars ?
A. (Witness nodded affirmatively.)”

This is insufficient. Suarez v. State, 136 So.2d 367 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962).

The other points raised by appellants are without merit. Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 924.34 (1967), F.S.A., judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instruction to enter judgment of conviction on the lesser included offenses and to pass sentence accordingly.

LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.