C.O., 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft after being found driving a white car, but the appellate court reversed because the State failed to establish that the car C.O. was driving was the same vehicle stolen from the owner.
The State failed to present a prima facie case that the vehicle C.O. was found driving was the same car stolen from Ms. Dixon, as there was no evidence linking the two vehicles.
[1] A conviction for burglary requires proof of ownership of the conveyance as alleged in the charging instrument, as it is a material element of the crime.
[2] Evidence is insufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency when the State fails to prove that the vehicle burglarized was the same vehicle alleged to be owned by…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“There is no evidence establishing that the white 1985 Toyota Camry stolen from Ms. Dixon at the 163rd Street shopping center on January 14th was the same vehicle as the white, four door car which Mr. August observed C.O. driving at 7742 N.W. 5th Court on January 15th.”
States the core legal principle that the State failed to prove the identity of the vehicles, which is essential to establishing delinquency
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA white 1985 Toyota Camry owned by Carolyn Dixon was stolen from a shopping center parking lot on January 14, 1989. When recovered, the car had damage…
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 Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The juvenile, C.O., was charged by a petition for delinquency with burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. After the hearing, C.O. was adjudicated delinquent and placed in a community control program. C.O. appeals. The State properly conceded error. We reverse.
The State alleged in the petition for delinquency that C.O. burglarized and stole a car owned by Carolyn Dixon. Ms. Dixon testified that she owned a white, 1985 Toyota Camry; that the car was stolen on the evening of January 14, 1989 from the parking lot at the 163rd Street Shopping Center; and that when she recovered the car from the towing service the back seats were pulled out and the ignition was torn, leaving wires exposed. She did not testify as to where the car had been recovered. The car’s registration certificate was marked for I.D., but not admitted into evidence.
Daniel August, a witness, testified that on the evening of January 15, 1989, he saw C.O. driving a white, four-door car in front of August’s home, located at 7742 N.W. 5th Court. When asked if the inside of the car was clean and in good condition, August responded “Okay”.
City of Miami police officer, Leslie Dol-man, responded to 7743 N.W. 5th Court, on the evening of January 15,1989, to a report of a car drag racing. Officer Dolman testified, that after a conversation with Mr. August, C.O. was placed under arrest. Officer Dolman advised C.O. of his Miranda rights and testified that C.O. said, “I didn’t steal the car. I was driving it to get it out of the street.” State rested. Defense counsel moved for an adjudication of non-delinquency, on the grounds that the State failed to present a prima facie case that the car which C.O. was found in was the same car stolen from Ms. Dixon. We agree.
There is no evidence establishing that the white 1985 Toyota Camry stolen from Ms. Dixon at the 163rd Street shopping center on January 14th was the same vehicle as the white, four door car which Mr. August observed C.O. driving at 7742 N.W. 5th Court on January 15th. See C.B. v. State, 519 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); J.G. v. State, 539 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rossi v. State, 717 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…on was the vehicle identified by the victim as stolen. See Coyle v. State, 493 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); J.E.P. v. State, 561 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA [*612] 1990); C.O. v. State, 557 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In case number 97-2843, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation based, in part, on his conviction of grand theft. In light of the reversal on the substantive offense, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of Appe…
-
Junior Maxine Joseph v. State, 956 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…the same one reported stolen by Hernandez. The State failed to meet its burden under State v. Law, supra, since Hernandez never identified the vehicle as his and there was no evidence of vehicle identification number confirmation. Cf. C.O. v. State, 557 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reversing an adjudication of delinquency when the State failed to present a prima facie case that the property stolen was the same as that found in defendant’s possession). Accordingly, we reverse his conviction for grand th…
-
In the Interest of J.H., 579 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…that the gold Seiko watch in a plastic bag found in appellant’s pocket was the same Seiko watch with gold band that was taken from the victim’s home, was fatal to the state’s case. Wagner v. State, 421 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); C.O. v. State, 557 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). REVERSED. DOWNEY and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 519 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- C.B. v. State, 519 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Commercial Ventures, Inc. v. Tropero Invs., N.V., 539 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)