final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower
Tribunal No. 15-21474B, Lourdes Simon, Judge.
J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James A. Odell, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ.
Freixa challenges her conviction and sentence for grand theft
of property with a value of $10, 000 or more but less than
$20, 000. Freixa argues that the State failed to provide
competent, substantial evidence of the value of the property
stolen in the amount necessary to support her conviction. We
agree and reverse in part. She also appeals her conviction
and sentence for criminal mischief, a first-degree
misdemeanor. Based on the State's proper concession that
Freixa's criminal mischief conviction was entered in
derogation of her right to competent counsel, we reverse that
conviction as well.
September 29, 2015, Alexander Aguirre's home was
burglarized. Freixa was arrested for the crime and charged
with: (1) armed burglary; (2) grand theft of $20, 000 or
more, but less than $100, 000; and (3) criminal mischief of
$200 or more, but less than $1, 000.
trial, Mr. Aguirre testified about the value of the stolen
property. After the State rested, Freixa moved for judgment
of acquittal on her charge of grand theft, arguing the
evidence was insufficient to establish value. That motion was
denied. After Freixa rested her case, she again moved for
judgment of acquittal on her grand theft count, which was
was convicted of burglary; grand theft of $10, 000 or more,
but less than $20, 000; and criminal mischief of $200 or
more, but less than $1, 000. She timely appealed her
convictions for grand theft and criminal mischief. She did
not appeal her conviction for burglary.
Court reviews the denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal de novo. Gonzalez v. State, 275 So.3d 766,
768 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Pagan v. State, 830
So.2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002)). This Court will affirm a denial
of a motion for judgment of acquittal "[i]f, after
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State,
a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the