offense of armed robbery. “At common law every simple larceny, whatever the value of the property stolen, was a felony____” State v. Gray, 14 Rich. 174, 175 (1867). However, common law larceny recognized two separate punishments based on the value of the goods stolen. Id. “If the value of the property was not above twelve pence, the theft constituted the offence known as petit larceny” and the convicted offender would be sentenced to either a term of imprisonment or a whipping. Id. A theft greater than twelve pence was considered grand larceny “and was punished with death, though with benefit of clergy.” Id. Thus, the common law regarded the petit/grand larceny distinction as merely a sentencing mechanism rather than an element of the offense. See 36 C.J. Larceny § 224 (1924) (<HOLDING>). Common law petit larceny became a statutory
recognizing common law grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal recognizing petit and grand larceny as merely two separate degrees of larceny not elements of the offense recognizing the abolition of common law petit larceny with the 1866 enactment of a statute which defined petit larceny as simple larceny of goods below the value of 20 holding that two offenses are separate for the purposes of  4a12a1 where all the elements of the first offense occurred before any activity forming the basis of the second offense recognizing a charge of common law grand larceny as the basis of an action for malicious prosecution