B.H., 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.
The Florida appellate court reversed adjudications for loitering and prowling, fraudulent use of a credit card, criminal use of personal identification information, and grand theft due to insufficient evidence and discovery violations, but affirmed adjudications for cannabis and paraphernalia possession.
Adjudications for loitering and prowling, fraudulent credit card use, criminal use of personal identification information, and grand theft are reversed due to insufficient evidence and unexamined discovery violations, while adjudications for cannabis and paraphernalia possession are affirmed.
[1] When a trial court is alerted to a potential discovery violation, it must conduct an inquiry pursuant to Richardson v. …
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 intelligenceA juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for multiple offenses including loitering and prowling, fraudulent use of a credit card, criminal use of persona…
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 Criminal Use Of Personal Identification Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The juvenile appellant challenges adjudications of delinquency for loitering and prowling, fraudulent use of a credit card, criminal use of personal identification information, grand theft, possession of cannabis, and possession of paraphernalia. We reverse all adjudications except those for the last two of these offenses.
We agree with the appellant’s argument that there was an insufficient evidentiary basis for the adjudication for loitering and prowling. See B.A.O. v. State, 932 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); C.H.S. v. State, 795 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We likewise agree that, when alerted to the possibility that the state had committed a discovery violation potentially affecting the prosecutions for fraudulent use of a credit card, criminal use of personal identification information, and grand theft, the trial court erred by failing to conduct an inquiry pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). A thorough review of the record fails to demonstrate that the Richardson error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the appellant’s remaining arguments on appeal are without merit, the delinquency adjudications for possession of cannabis and possession of paraphernalia are affirmed, but the other adjudications are reversed.
ALLEN, KAHN, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- C.H.S. v. State, 795 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- B.A.O. v. State, 932 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)