G. K. D., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A 12-year-old juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for breaking a business window by kicking it after watching a karate movie. On appeal, his counsel could identify no reversible error, and the court affirmed the adjudication and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
The adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was proper. The child's intent to break the window can be inferred from the willful nature of the kick and the presumption that he intended the probable consequences of his actions. The lack of parental notification prior to on-site interrogation does not prohibit interrogation under these circumstances.
[1] A juvenile's admission to striking a window with a "karate type kick" after seeing a "karate movie" supports a finding that the juvenile willfully and maliciously injured…
[2] A juvenile may be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his actions, even if he claims he did not intend to break the window.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“he did willfully kick the window, and he may be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his actions”
The court's rationale for affirming the adjudication despite the child's claim of lack of intent to break the window
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 12-year-old appellant and a companion were apprehended near a broken storefront window. After initially denying involvement, the appellant admitted …
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment and sentence entered in the circuit court for Duval County.
Appellant, a 12 year old youth, was adjudicated a delinquent child because he “did willfully and maliciously injure or damage the real or personal property of another . . . . ” The record shows that the front window of a business establishment was broken and appellant, together with a companion, was apprehended near the scene. Appellant initially denied any involvement in or knowledge of the matter, but after 15 minutes admitted “hitting the window,” “wondering if it would break,” and striking it with a “karate type kick” whereupon the window did break. Appellant and his companion had seen a “karate movie” earlier in the evening.
At the close of state’s evidence appellant moved for judgment of acquittal, which motion was denied. The motion was again made and denied at the close of the evidence. Appellant was adjudicated delinquent and committed to HRS. A motion to vacate judgment was made and denied.
This is an Anders appeal (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)); appellant’s appointed counsel is unable to assert, in good faith, any point of reversible error. Appellant was provided the opportunity to, but did not, file a brief in his own behalf. An independent examination of the record likewise fails to reveal any arguable point of reversible error. Appellant testified that he did not intend to break the window, but the record indicates that he did willfully kick the window, and he may be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his actions. Although appellant’s parents were not notified prior to the on-site interrogation (see § 39.03(3), Florida Statutes), such lack of notification does not prohibit the on-site interrogation in the circumstances of this case. See Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1980).
Appellant was found to have committed a misdemeanor, violating § 806.13, Florida Statutes, and the action taken by the trial judge was within her power pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See § 39.01(8) and 39.10(2).
We accordingly affirm.
ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1980)