final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No.
Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
appeal arises from two burglaries of the same residence
discovered five days apart. In both incidents, the house was
ransacked and property was taken. Appellant was convicted of
the residential burglary count alleging property damage over
$1, 000, but he was acquitted of the other residential
burglary. He was also convicted of grand theft of property
worth $20, 000 or more. We address appellant's argument
on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motions
for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove:
(1) the amount of the property damage alleged in the
residential burglary charge, and (2) the value of the
property stolen as alleged in the grand theft charge. As to
the other issues raised in this appeal, we find no error.
was charged by information in Count I with residential
burglary of the victims' home between October 25, 2013
and October 28, 2013, with the intent to commit theft and
causing property damage in excess of $1, 000. In Count II,
appellant was charged with residential burglary of the same
victims' home between November 1, 2013 and November 2,
2013 with the intent to commit theft. In Count III, appellant
was charged with grand theft of property valued at $20, 000
or more from the victims' home between October 25, 2013
and November 2, 2013.
trial, the state presented the following evidence. On October
25, 2013, while the homeowners were away on a cruise, their
son checked on their home. When he returned on October 28,
2013, he discovered that it had been burglarized. He found
damage to the rear French doors and hurricane windows, items
strewn all over the floor, and contents from the trunks of
two vehicles on the garage floor. He called the Fort
Lauderdale police, who processed the scene for evidence and
took photographs. Police also found a cigarette butt
containing a single DNA source sample that was later matched
to appellant's DNA sample.
November 2, 2013, when the son returned to the house, he
noticed further damage to the French doors, additional items
strewn on the floor, including some of his mother's
purses, and more missing items, including chinaware and a
silver tea set. The son reported the burglary, and the police
again processed the home and took photographs. The son told
police the damage to the French doors was more extensive
after the second incident such that the doors could not be
on information from a confidential informant, in August 2014,
police obtained and served search warrants on two apartments
in Fort Lauderdale-one on 19th Street and the other on 18th
Court. Police found property from the victims' house in
both apartments. They identified the 19th Street apartment as
appellant's residence, which he shared with his
girlfriend. The victims' chinaware was located at
appellant's residence, dirty and stacked on the side of
the kitchen sink. Police also recovered other items belonging
to the victims, including dining ware, purses, binoculars, a
silver urn, and jewelry. The state, however, did not specify
which property of the victims was found in the 18th Court
apartment, nor did it itemize the value of the items
recovered from each of the apartments.
the two burglaries, the victims paid $3, 724 to replace the
French doors and a hurricane window, and $408.10 to replace
the locks after noticing that their house keys were missing.
They paid to replace door handles but did not provide that
receipt at trial. One of the witnesses testified that the
total value of the items taken during the two burglaries was
$24, 597. Of that total, $709 worth of items returned was
from the first burglary and $1, 954 was from the second. The
remaining $21, 934 was for items that had not been returned.
the state rested its case, appellant moved for a judgment of
acquittal on each count. He argued that the state failed to
establish that the damage resulting from the October burglary
(Count I) was more than one thousand dollars and that the
state had not presented actual evidence linking him to the
November burglary (Count II). As to the grand theft charge in
Count III, appellant argued that the state had not proven
that the items found in the 19th Street residence were
knowingly stolen or that appellant had anything to do with
the theft of the items. The trial court denied the motion for
judgment of acquittal on all charges.
testified and also called his girlfriend's brother as a
witness. The brother, who admitted he had 16 felony
convictions, testified that his sister lived with appellant
at the 19th Street apartment. The apartment shared its
backyard with the 18th Court apartment, which belonged to a
handyman. The handyman, who had access to appellant's
apartment, was always doing odd jobs and could get people
whatever they wanted. He would bring various items to the
apartment, like a safe and jewelry.
testified that he was not involved in burglaries. He said he
was a drug dealer, who supplied drugs to the handyman in
exchange for goods. However, he never asked the handyman
where he obtained the ...