Source: http://sessalaw.com/crimes/theft-fraud/grand-theft/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:36:51+00:00

Document:
The property was valued at $300 or more.
In Florida, the penalties available for Grand Theft will depend on how the charge is classified. The classification applied to an offense generally depends on the value of the property taken. A higher value and higher degree of theft will generally subject the accused to harsher penalties.
Any amount of a controlled substance as defined in s. 893.02.
Penalty: Grand Theft of the Third Degree is classified as a third degree felony, with penalties of up to 5 years in prison or 5 years of probation and a $5,000 fine.
Law enforcement equipment, valued at $300 or more, that is taken from an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in s. 316.003.
Penalty: Grand Theft of the Second Degree is a Second Degree Felony, with penalties up to 15 years in prison or 15 years of probation, and a $10,000 fine.
If the offender commits any grand theft and: (a) In the course of committing the offense the offender uses a motor vehicle as an instrumentality to assist in committing the offense and thereby damages the real property of another; or (b) In the course of committing the offense the offender causes damage to the real or personal property of another in excess of $1,000.
Penalty: Grand Theft of the First Degree carries penalties of up to 30 years in prison, with a maximum fine of $10,000.
Grant Theft is a “specific intent” crime, which means that the defendant must not only take property belonging to another person, but must also have done so with the aim of stealing (i.e.depriving the victim of his or her rights to property). State v. C.G., 572 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1991).
To sustain a conviction, there must be some substantial competent evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer the felonious intent. Mosher v. State, 750 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Mistake of Fact- in Florida, the intent to steal does not exist where a defendant acts under the mistaken belief that the property he took was his own property. Bedoya v. State, 634 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Maddox v. State, 38 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1948); Dean v. State, 41 Fla. 291, 26 So. 638 (1899)).
Proof of the element of value is essential to sustain a conviction for grand theft, and must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Ramos v. State, 864 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
(a)1. Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.
Section 812.012(10)(b) further states that: “[i]f the value of property cannot be ascertained, the trier of fact may find the value to be not less than a certain amount; if no such minimum value can be ascertained, the value is an amount less than $100.
Thus, the crime of grand theft generally requires proof of the market value when the offense occurred. Malloy v. State, 397 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The original purchase price is a factor in establishing value at the time of the taking, but the item’s use, general condition, quality when purchased, and percentage of appreciation or depreciation since purchase must also be established. Ramos, 864 So. 2d at 1252 (citing Gilbert v. State, 817 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)).
Where market value at the time of the theft cannot be determined, it may also be established with evidence of the replacement cost of a stolen item, although some evidence must be adduced that the replacement item was similar in value to the item stolen at the time of the taking. Id.
It is settled law in Florida that testimony as to the original purchase price of stolen property is insufficient by itself to prove value at the time of a theft. Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974); Soderman v. State, 844 So.2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); DH v. State, 864 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Retail value and speculative estimates are also insufficient to establish the value of stolen property. Evans v. State, 452 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); In the Interest of F.R., 539 So.2d 588, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Evidence must furthermore derive from a witness who is competent to testify as to value. Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
State vs. L.N.P. (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (2014)– Our client was charged with Grand Theft and Resisting Recovery of Merchandise after allegedly stealing over $375.00 worth of merchandise from a local Target department store. The incident was captured on low quality surveillance footage, which showed a female with a medium build concealing items in her shopping cart and then attempting to exit the store without paying. The suspect fled the store in a black SUV with a license plate that identified our client as the registered owner.
Although two loss prevention officers identified our client in a photo spread, she insisted that the female shown in the video footage was her mother, who had a medium build and facial features similar to our client. The prosecution demanded 10 months county jail for the offense, due to the fact that our client was on probation for Felony Petit Theft (third offense) at the time of the incident.
Upon being retained in the case, our attorneys acquired the surveillance footage and reviewed witness statements, incident reports, and the photo lineup. Our review of the materials showed critical defects in the photo spread, and major issues with the physical description of the suspect provided in the incident report. We reviewed video footage frame by frame from multiple camera angles, and identified two clear images of the suspect that were entirely missed by the prosecution. The images appeared to show a female who was much older than our client (age 30).
Despite these revelations, the Office of the State Attorney refused to drop the charge and insisted first on a felony violation of probation hearing. Their objective was to obtain an easier conviction at a VOP hearing (which has a lower standard of proof and requires less preparation by the State) and then strong-arm a plea to the new Grand Theft charge. At hearing, we presented extensive witness testimony that identified the suspect in the video as our client’s mother. We also subpoenaed the mother to appear at the hearing. She denied responsibility, but her presence in court permitted a side-by-side comparison with the suspect shown in the video.
Our client was found not guilty of violating her probation. The affidavit of violation was dismissed, and the court immediately terminated probation. The State then dropped the new Grand Theft charge.
The hiring of an attorney is a critical decision in a prosecution for Grand Theft. Given the numerous defenses to the charge and the technical requirements to sustain a conviction, an attorney can make a dramatic difference in the outcome of a case. Even where no viable defenses exist, being represented by counsel means that a defendant’s case can be presented in the best possible light, with negotiations aimed at avoiding prison and a permanent felony record.
If you have been charged or arrested for Grand Theft, contact attorney Steven Sessa for a free consultation. Our law firm handles cases throughout Southeast and Central Florida.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.