Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rivera v. State
Citations: 73 So. 3d 333; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17203; 2011 WL 5109490Docket: No. 5D11-1084
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 28, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court
Angel Rivera appeals his conviction for grand theft, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the value of the stolen items. The prosecution charged Mr. Rivera with theft of items valued at $300 or more, including a laptop and an X-Box console, with the victims testifying to approximate purchase prices. However, no evidence was provided regarding the fair market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft, and Mr. Rivera did not raise any objections during the trial regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal, Rivera contends that the lack of adequate evidence regarding the value of the items should result in a reduction of his conviction to petit theft. Citing past rulings, he argues that the state is required to present competent evidence of the value of stolen property. However, the court notes that the contemporaneous objection rule mandates that any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be preserved through a timely objection in the trial court, with exceptions only for death penalty cases or instances where no crime was committed. Since Rivera did not claim he was wrongfully charged or that a crime did not occur, and did not preserve his argument for appeal, the court affirms his grand theft conviction. Additionally, Rivera was convicted of other charges, including burglary and possession of firearms as a felon, but did not contest those convictions on appeal. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.