ARTHUR JERRY SHULER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of two counts of throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling, one count of resisting an officer without violence, and two counts of criminal mischief.
On appeal, Appellant challenges only his convictions for throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling. We find that the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the two counts of throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.
The testimony of James Garvin, Tawana Mitchell, and Sergeant Keith Davis merely established that Appellant was present at the scene around the time, but not at the time, the rocks were thrown through the window. There was absolutely no evidence presented that Appellant actually threw the rocks through the window of Mr. Garvin’s house. Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to justify a conviction. See, e.g., Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1988); T.B. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, Appellant’s convictions for throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling are reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
ALLEN, C.J., MINER and DAVIS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.M. a child v. State, 917 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…te, 275 So. 2d 575, 577-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The evidence established Appellant’s willing participation or conscious- intent for the delinquent act to be done. Appellant misplaces his reliance on “mere presence” decisions such as Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the motion for judgment of dismissal. Restitution Order On the first day of the two-day restitution proceedings, John Merrill, who was employed in the maintenance department of the…
-
Yarbrough v. State, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ant seeks two years of prison credit for the initial time served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence. A defendant is entitled to credit for time he has already served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence. Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); See Corpus v. State, 744 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant is entitled to prison credit for time already served in prison on the charges). The trial court failed to attach any documents, such as the written…
-
Wells v. State, 967 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…hich did) incite the co-defendant to commit the crime. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a). Appellant’s mere presence at the crime scene during overlapping intervals, without more, does not justify a principals instruction. See Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The error is not harmless because the verdict does not reveal whether the jury relied on the principals theory to convict Appellant, and because the instruction was likely to cause confusion in light of the State’s emphasis in c…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1988)
- T.B. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)