J.M., 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.
Juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency for armed robbery was affirmed, but the court erred in adjudicating the child delinquent for both armed robbery and petit theft based on a single act, violating double jeopardy protections.
A child cannot be adjudicated delinquent for multiple offenses arising from a single act because the constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishment for one act.
[1] The constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits adjudicating a juvenile delinquent for multiple offenses arising from a single act.
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 intelligenceJ.M., a juvenile, was charged with armed robbery and petit theft. The juvenile court found him guilty of both offenses based on the same conduct and a…
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 Constitutional Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. '
The appellant, J.M., appeals a juvenile court order adjudicating him a delinquent child based upon a finding that he committed armed robbery and petit theft.
The state filed a petition alleging that the appellant was a delinquent child because he committed armed robbery and petit theft. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court found that the appellant had committed the offenses and adjudicated him a delinquent. The court suspended the appellant’s commitment and placed him on community control. This timely appeal followed.
Although we find no merit in the appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that he had committed an offense, we agree that the court erred in finding that he committed both offenses. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishment for a single act. Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987). Since it is undisputed that both the armed robbery and petit theft charges were based on a single act, the appellant could only be adjudicated a delinquent child for the armed robbery. See State v. Barton, 523 So. 2d 152 (Fla.1988). We, accordingly, affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but remand for the entry of an amended order indicating that the adjudication is based only upon the armed robbery offense.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.M. v. State, 541 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…PARKER, Judge. Appellant correctly points out that his adjudication of delinquency for both armed robbery and petit theft arising from a single act is a violation of the protection against double jeopardy. See J.M. v. State, 536 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), citing Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987). We reverse the adjudication of delinquency only as it pertains to the petit theft and remand for the trial court to correct the delinquency order to so reflect. We find no mer…
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Barton, 523 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1988)