Four separate incidents, none of them individually worth much. Each one standing alone would be a misdemeanor. Then the charging document arrives and it’s a felony. That’s aggregation, and it’s one of the least understood mechanics in Florida theft law. Prosecutors don’t have to charge each incident separately and settle for a stack of misdemeanors. In defined circumstances they can add the values together and charge the total, and a 2024 law widened that authority considerably for retail cases. Here’s how thefts get combined, what the windows are, and where these cases come apart.
Where the Value Lines Fall
Florida Statute 812.014 sets theft grades primarily by the value of what was taken. Petit theft covers property under seven hundred fifty dollars. Third-degree grand theft runs from seven hundred fifty dollars to twenty thousand. Second-degree grand theft covers twenty thousand to a hundred thousand, and first-degree grand theft applies above that.
The seven hundred fifty dollar line is the one that matters most, because that’s where a misdemeanor becomes a felony. It was raised from three hundred dollars effective October 1, 2019, which means older articles and even some older lawyers still quote the wrong number.
Certain items are third-degree felonies regardless of what they’re worth. The statute lists a number of them, including a firearm, a motor vehicle, a will or other testamentary instrument, an installed fire extinguisher, a stop sign, and any amount of a controlled substance. In those cases value never enters the analysis at all.
Where the Aggregation Rules Actually Live
Retail theft has its own statute, Section 812.015, separate from the general theft statute, and that is where the aggregation provisions sit. This distinction matters, because the rules described below apply to retail theft offenses rather than to every theft case.
The 120-Day Window
Under Section 812.015(8), a person commits a third-degree felony if, individually or in concert with one or more other people, they coordinate the activities of one or more individuals in committing retail theft, which may occur through multiple acts of retail theft, with the amount of each individual theft aggregated within a 120-day period to determine the value of the property stolen, and that value is $750 or more.
A parallel provision covers conspiring with another person to commit retail theft with intent to sell the stolen property, and then placing that property in someone else’s control in exchange for consideration, with property taken or placed within a 120-day period aggregated to reach the same $750 figure.
Section 812.015(9) escalates the offense to a second degree felony where the aggregated value within a 120-day period exceeds $3,000, or where the person has a prior conviction under subsection (8) or (9).
What the 2024 Law Changed
The House staff analysis for the bill that became chapter 2024-69, effective October 1, 2024, describes two relevant changes. It extended the aggregation window from 30 days to 120 days. And it decreased the number of theft offenses required under two specific provisions, where an offender must commit a certain aggregate number of thefts within a specified timeframe and obtain a specified number of items of merchandise, from five thefts down to three.
Note the structure of that second provision carefully. It is not simply a rule that three thefts equal a felony. It pairs a required number of separate thefts with a required number of items of merchandise, and the specific combinations are set out in the statute.
The practical effect is that a series of retail thefts spread across four months, none of them individually a felony, can be charged as one offense when the statutory elements are present.
Why Prosecutors Use It
The advantages from their side are obvious. A felony carries prison exposure a misdemeanor doesn’t, and it brings permanent consequences for employment, housing, and civil rights. It also changes the negotiation completely, because someone facing a felony evaluates a plea offer very differently than someone facing a county court misdemeanor.
Aggregation also lets the state present a pattern rather than an incident. Four separate occasions across three months tells a story about intent and planning that a single afternoon never could.
Where Aggregated Cases Come Apart
These cases carry structural weaknesses that single-incident cases don’t, and the defense work is different as a result.
Proving Each Underlying Theft
This is the biggest one. To aggregate, the state has to prove every incident it wants to add in. If the evidence on the second incident is thin because the surveillance footage is poor, the identification is uncertain, or the employee who witnessed it no longer works there and can’t be located, that incident may not survive. Knock out enough of them and the total drops back below the felony line.
Identification Across Separate Dates
Retail theft cases lean heavily on surveillance video, and video quality varies enormously from one store to another. The state has to establish that the same person committed each incident it’s combining. Grainy footage from four different dates is not the same thing as clear identification, and a defense that tests each incident on its own terms tends to find real gaps.
Valuation and Timing
Valuation is contestable. Marked-up merchandise, sale items, used goods, and damaged goods can be worth meaningfully less than a price tag suggests, and when a case sits just above the felony line, valuation alone can decide it.
The time window matters just as precisely. Aggregation only reaches incidents inside the statutory period, so thefts falling outside that window can’t be combined no matter how similar they look. The dates on each alleged incident are worth checking against the calendar rather than taking as given.
The Coordination and Conspiracy Elements
The subsection (8) provisions aren’t triggered by volume alone. They require coordination of the activities of one or more individuals, or a conspiracy to commit retail theft with intent to sell. Those are elements the state has to prove, and they’re frequently the weakest part of a case built against a single person acting alone.
Restitution Doesn’t Make It Disappear
A common instinct is to pay the store back and assume the case resolves itself. Paying restitution can genuinely matter, since it influences charging decisions, supports a diversion referral, and affects sentencing.
But theft is prosecuted by the State of Florida, not by the merchant. The store’s willingness to walk away doesn’t end the case and it doesn’t undo aggregation. There’s a civil dimension too, since Florida’s civil theft statute allows a victim to sue for three times the actual damages plus attorney’s fees, independent of the criminal case and even where that case ends in acquittal.
Acting Before the Charging Decision
The most important window in an aggregated theft case often opens before charges are formally filed, while the state is still evaluating what it can actually prove across multiple incidents. That’s when problems with specific incidents can be raised, valuations challenged, and the shape of what gets charged sometimes changed.
Once a felony information is filed, positions harden and the same arguments carry less weight. Getting into that pre-filing window is where our team at Reynoso Erickson Trial Law can do the most for someone facing a multi-incident case.