# Brown v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · July 12, 1983 · 434 So. 2d 50

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7526723

## Case

- **Full name:** James BROWN, Jr., a/k/a Frank Lawshea v. The STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** July 12, 1983
- **Citations:** 434 So. 2d 50; 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19880
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ferguson, Hendry, Pearson
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7526723

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
Brown’s contention on appeal that the State’s failure to adduce evidence showing the value of the property to be $100 or more precludes his conviction for grand theft in the second degree, see § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1981), and requires a reduction of the crime to petit theft, is not preserved for appellate review in light of the fact that Brown’s motion for judgment of acquittal was exclusively based on the insufficiency of the evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Estrada v. State, 400 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); V.J.T. v. State, 390 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Daley v. State, 374 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); De La Cova v. State, 355 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Brown’s other contention that neither the out-of-court nor in-court identification of him should have been admitted because the out-of-court identification was so impermis-sibly suggestive as to taint the in-court identification, even if arguably preserved for review, is without merit.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7526723. Public record. Not legal advice.