A.L.J., 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.
A minor was adjudicated delinquent of felony criminal mischief for pepper-spraying a McDonald's. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed the felony conviction, finding the state failed to prove the $1,000 threshold in allowable damages, and remanded for adjudication as a first-degree misdemeanor instead.
The state failed to prove allowable property damages exceeding $1,000. Only $450 in provable damages ($250 in labor and $200 in food replacement) were established; lost profits and workers' compensation payments do not qualify as property damage costs under the statute. The conviction is reversed and remanded for adjudication as a first-degree misdemeanor.
[1] Lost profits or sales are not considered "costs to restore" for the purpose of determining felony criminal mischief under Florida Statutes section 806.13(1)(b)3.
[2] Workers' compensation paid for employee injuries resulting from property damage does not count towards the "costs to restore" for felony criminal mischief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the state's evidence.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing the motion and what must be proven
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.L.J. sprayed a large amount of pepper spray into the drive-thru window of a McDonald's restaurant, hitting two employees and spreading into the cook…
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 Felony Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, A.L.J., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of dismissal on the charge of felony criminal mischief or, in the alternative, a reduction in the charge to a first degree misdemeanor due to the state’s failure to prove property damage in excess of $1,000. We affirm the denial of the motion for judgment of dismissal without discussion. We agree that the state failed to prove allowable property damages exceeding $1,000.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent of felony criminal mischief after witnesses testified that he sprayed a large amount of pepper spray into the drive-thru window of a McDonald’s restaurant. The pepper spray hit two employees and spread into the restaurant’s cooking area. McDonald’s manager testified that due to the necessary closing of the restaurant for three hours, it lost $1200 in sales, $200 in food, $500 for workers’ compensation, and $250 in labor to clean up.
The standard of review for a motion for judgment of dismissal is de novo. J.G. v. State, 915 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the state’s evidence. J.P. v. State, 855 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Section 806.13(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides:
(l)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism.
(b)l. If the damage to such property is $200 or less, it is a misdemeanor of the second degree....
2. If the damage to such property is greater than $200 but less than $1,000, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree....
3. If the damage is $1,000 or greater, or if there is interruption or impairment of business operation or public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service which costs $1,000 or more in labor and supplies to restore, it is a felony of the third degree....
In the petition for delinquency, appellant was charged with injuring the property of the McDonald’s by “impairing or interrupting said business costing one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or more, in labor and supplies to restore.” Accordingly, the only costs for damages proven by the state were the $250 for labor costs to clean the restaurant, and the $200 cost to replace the food which was damaged by the pepper spray, totaling $450. The $500 for workers’ compensation was paid for the injuries to the victims, not for property *875damage. The lost sales or profits of $1200 are not included in the costs to restore the business’s operation.
We, therefore, reverse appellant’s conviction for felony criminal mischief and remand for adjudication of delinquency on criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the first degree, pursuant to section 806.13(l)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2007).
Reversed and Remanded with Directions.
STEVENSON, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.B. v. State, 31 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…andard of review that applies to motions for judgment of dismissal in a juvenile case is the same standard that applies to motions for judgment of acquittal in an adult criminal case, the juvenile court’s ruling is reviewed de novo. A.L.J. v. State, 12 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); J.P. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1262, 1264 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). When moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits both the facts adduced, as well as every conclusion favorable to the State that a finder of fact cou…
-
T.S.W. v. State, 82 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…The standard of review for a motion for judgment of dismissal in juvenile cases is the same de novo standard we apply to review a judgment of acquittal in an adult criminal case. R.H. v. State, 56 So. 3d 156,157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); A.L.J. v. State, 12 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Our supreme court has defined a common poeketknife as “ ‘[a] type of knife occurring frequently in the community which has a blade that folds into the handle and that can be carried in one’s pocket.’” L.B. v. State, 700 So…
-
T.W. v. State, 98 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…h evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the state. Id. (alterations removed) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the state’s evidence.” A.L.J. v. State, 12 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Burglary In the instant case, the state presented no evidence that T.W. actually entered the SUV. As such, his conviction could only be based upon a principal theory of burglary. “In order to be guilty as a principal for…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.P. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Lynch v. United Distribs., Inc., 915 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- J.G. v. State, 915 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)