V. J. T., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed delinquency findings for petit larceny and burglary, holding that the appellant failed to preserve for appellate review his sufficiency-of-evidence challenge to the burglary count because the ground was neither raised in trial motions nor adequately preserved in the post-trial motion to vacate.
A defendant fails to preserve for appellate review a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge when the specific ground is not raised in motions for judgment of acquittal at trial or adequately preserved in a post-trial motion to vacate.
[1] A sufficiency-of-evidence challenge to a delinquency finding is not preserved for appellate review when the specific ground is neither raised in motions for judgment of a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on counts of petit larceny and burglary. The appellant conceded the petit larceny finding but challenged the bur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The findings of delinquency which are under review by this appeal are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the appellant has failed to attack the finding of delinquency on the petit larceny count entered below, and, indeed, concedes in his brief that this finding should be affirmed; and (2) the appellant has failed to preserve for appellate review the sole ground which he now urges in attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of delinquency on the burglary count entered below because: (a) this ground was admittedly never raised in appellant’s oral motions for judgment of acquittal made at trial; and (b) this ground, contrary to appellant’s contention, was never raised in appellant’s oral motion to vacate [see Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.230] made subsequent to trial as said motion merely raised a conclusory and vague collage of grounds, essentially relating to the constitutionality of the burglary statute, and referred only slightly and in a confused manner to the failure of the state to prove the burglary element of entering or remaining in the subject vehicle [which, in any event, is quite different from the contention now raised on appeal, based on State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), that the state failed to establish the burglary element of an intent to commit an offense therein]. Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 400 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…harging him with carrying a concealed firearm is rejected, because (a) this contention was not preserved for review where the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal claimed merely that the weapon was not shown to be a firearm, V.J.T. v. State, 390 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and (b) the evidence of concealment was, in any event, sufficient, Oliver v. State, 393 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Affirmed.…
-
Wells v. State, 417 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ments, was insufficient to preserve error. Furthermore, a “bare bones motion,” which fails to state its grounds, does not raise every possible claimed insufficiency. Patterson v. State, 391 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see also V. J. T. v. State, 390 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Even if defendant’s position were correct, however, the hearing on the question of competency conducted by the court three weeks after sentencing and the opinions of the three court-appointed psychiatrists that defendant was sa…
-
Brown v. State, 434 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nt 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…
Authorities Cited
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Carlton O. Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quintana v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)