Monday, June 20, 2016

Grand Theft, Petit Theft and the Dell Laptop

This post deals with an opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida – Fourth District:  Walker v. State, 2016 WL 2745011 (2016). The court begins by explaining that “[t]he issue in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of the value of a stolen laptop to support appellant's conviction for third-degree grand theft.”  Walker v. State, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that Walker (“appellant”)
broke into a house and stole a Dell laptop in August 2013. The victim testified that the laptop had a value of $800 because she purchased it for that amount in 2012.

Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge, arguing that the state presented insufficient evidence as to the value of the laptop. The trial court denied the motion. After a jury verdict, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft.

On appeal, appellant challenges only his conviction for grand theft. He does not raise any issues with respect to his burglary conviction.
Walker v. State, supra.
The Court of Appeal began its analysis of Walker’s argument by explaining that
[t]o establish third-degree grand theft, the state must prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. Florida Statutes §§ 812.012(10)(a)(1), 812.014(2)(c)(1) (2013).

`Absent direct testimony of the market value of the property, proof may be established through the following factors: original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or construction.’ Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 920 (District Court of Appeal of Florida – Fourth District 2014) (citation omitted). `Evidence of the purchase price and age of the stolen item, without more, is insufficient.’ Tindal v. State, supra.
Walker v. State, supra.
Florida Statutes § 812.012(10)(a)(1) defines the concept of “value” as it applies to “theft, robbery and related crimes”.  More precisely, § 812.012(10)(a)(1) defines “value” as “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.”
And Florida Statutes § 812.014(2)(c)(1) defines “theft,” in pertinent part, as follows:
(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. . . .
The issue in this case, of course, was the value of the stolen property, which would determine whether Walker was guilty of third-degree grand theft or second-degree petit theft. Walker v. State, supra. As Wikipedia explains, in the United States
[g]rand theft . . . is an expression used to designate theft that is large in magnitude or serious in penological consequences. Grand theft is contrasted with petty theft, theft that is of smaller magnitude or lesser seriousness. The distinction between grand theft and petty theft presupposes the definition of theft generally. . . .

[E]ach state establishes the distinction between grand and petty theft for cases falling within its jurisdiction. The distinction is generally established by statute, as are the penological consequences. Most commonly, statutes establishing the distinction between grand theft and petty theft do so on the basis of the value of the money or property taken by the thief or lost by the victim. Most commonly, the penological consequences of the distinction include the significant one that grand theft can be treated as a felony, while petty theft is generally treated as a misdemeanor.
As Wikipedia also explains, California, for example,
distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft. Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $950 (it can be money, labor or property but is lower with respect to various specified property), while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts. Grand theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged (depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony, while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months in jail or both. . . .
Florida Statutes § 812.014(c)(2), which you can find here, defines grand theft of the third degree, which is also a felony of the third degree as cases in which the property stolen is:
1. Valued at $300 or more, but less than $5,000.
2. Valued at $5,000 or more, but less than $10,000.
3. Valued at $10,000 or more, but less than $20,000.
4. A will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument.
5. A firearm. . . .
Florida Statutes § 812.014(2)(c) goes on to define a number of other activities that also qualify as grand theft of the third degree, but none of them could apply here, e.g., they include theft of motor vehicles, fire extinguishers, farm animals and stop signs.
Getting back to the opinion, the Court of Appeal explained that
[t[o establish third-degree grand theft, the state must prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. §§ 812.012(10(a)(1), 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).

`Absent direct testimony of the market value of the property, proof may be established through the following factors: original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or construction.’ Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 920 (Florida District Court of Appeal 2014) (citation omitted). “Evidence of the purchase price and age of the stolen item, without more, is insufficient.’ Id.
Walker v. State, supra.
The Court of Appeal therefore held that
Tindal is dispositive on this issue. In that case, the victim testified to the purchase price of a laptop in 2007 and the amount it would have cost to replace it two years later when it was stolen. This court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge, and instructed the trial court to reduce the conviction to second-degree petit theft.
Walker v. State, supra.
The court then explained that,
[l]ike in Tindal, here the state introduced evidence of only the purchase price and the age of the laptop. There was no other evidence of market value such as the manner in which the item was used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation.

The state argues that unlike in Tindal, here the laptop was stolen only one year after its purchase, whereas in Tindal it was stolen two years after its purchase. We find the difference between a one-year-old laptop and a two-year-old laptop is not significant enough to the issue of the value of the stolen item at the time of the theft. `Electrical components like .. . . computers . . .  are subject to accelerated obsolescence because manufacturers are constantly releasing new, improved technology at lower prices.’ Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 692 (Florida District Court of Appeal 2010).

In sum, because the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the laptop at the time of the theft, we reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand for entry of a conviction for second-degree petit theft.

Because appellant does not contest his burglary conviction, that conviction stands.

Reversed and remanded for entry of a conviction and sentence for second-degree petit theft.
Walker v. State, supra.


No comments: