OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of one count of grand larceny in violation of NRS 205.220. 1 The charge was based on the theft of goods from a retail department store. Appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial concerning the value of the stolen goods was not sufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree.

The state primarily relied on evidence of price tags attached to the goods at the time of the theft. The price tags, which indicated that the goods had a fair market value of more than $100, were competent evidence of the value of the stolen goods *760 for purposes of establishing grand larceny. See Lauder v. State, 195 A.2d 610 (Md. 1963), City of Albuquerque v. Martinez, 604 P.2d 842 (N.M.Ct.App. 1979); Norris v. State, 475 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1971). See generally Mercado v. Sheriff, 94 Nev. 771, 587 P.2d 1327 (1978).

Appellant’s other contention has been considered and is without merit.

Affirmed.