J. C., 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.
J.C., a minor, was convicted of burglary of a conveyance and grand theft of a motor vehicle. He appealed challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's sentencing departure from the Department's recommendation. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the totality of circumstances sufficient to identify J.C. as the person leaving the victim's car. The court also affirmed the sentencing, holding that the trial court had authority to impose a Level 8 program based on J.C.'s demonstrated attitude of not caring about his actions.
[1] Circumstantial evidence, including witness identification, a dog tracking a scent, and the defendant's actions and statements, can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a r…
[2] A court has the authority to depart from a department's sentencing recommendation when it determines that the defendant's attitude necessitates a different sentencing app…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with the state that these facts, together, are sufficient to identify J.C. as the one seen leaving the victim's car.”
Establishes that the totality of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim returned home at 11:25 p.m. and observed someone in her parked station wagon, who exited from the driver's side wearing dark pants and a wh…
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 Grand Theft Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
J.C. was found guilty of burglary of a conveyance and grand theft of a motor vehicle. . He appeals claiming that there was insufficient evidence that he committed the offenses and that the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal. He also challenges the court’s departure from the Department’s recommendation in sentencing him. We affirm.
The victim returned home at 11:25 p.m. and saw someone in her station wagon, which was parked in her driveway. She saw someone vacate her vehicle from the driver’s side. She indicated that the person coming out of her vehicle was wearing dark pants and a white shirt. He had short, dark hair. He ran into the backyard. A witness then identified J.C. as the individual seen running into his backyard and taking off his shirt and pants. J.C. was also described as having grease on his hands. A dog tracked a scent from the station wagon to where J.C. was standing. J.C. said that “Danny” was the one. The victim said it could not have been Danny.
We agree with the state that these facts, together, are sufficient to identify J.C. as the one seen leaving the victim’s car. Concerning the sentence, it is apparent from the record that J.C. had been before the court earlier and had been ordered to complete a residential program in Indiana. He apparently had been unable to gain admittance. The court decided to commit J.C. to a level 8 program but to reconsider the sentence within 60 days if the Indiana program was available. The court stated in response to the mother:
I appreciate that, but I’m not going to put that pressure on you. He is 16 years old. He needs to grow up. I’ve talked to [Appellant] before. He’s not unintelligent. He knows what he’s doing. He just doesn’t care. And I’m not going to put you in that position. He can hate me all he wants. I don’t care. But, you know, you’re his mom, you love him, and you try to do everything you could. He doesn’t care. So I’m willing to do the Indiana thing for you, and I think that would help [Appellant], from what I know of the program. I don’t know a lot. about it. But otherwise, if we can’t get him in there, then he needs to do the Level 8 here, followed by — he’ll come home to you on probation.
It is apparent that the court believed that J. C.’s attitude of not caring made it necessary to place him in the Level 8 program. We agree that the court had such authority.
AFFIRM.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, C.J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.S. v. State, 736 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…tened of him that they refused to allow him to live with them. The predisposition report stated that E.S. was manipulative, violent and “a time bomb waiting to go off.” All of this supports the trial judge’s decision to commit E.S. In J.C. v. State, 727 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the child appealed his Level 8 commitment which departed from DJJ’s recommendation. This court held that a child’s “attitude of not caring” made commitment to DJJ necessary. If a child can be committed for his “attitude of not c…