M.M., 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.
This case involves a juvenile appealing delinquency adjudications for grand theft and burglary. The appellate court reversed the grand theft adjudication due to insufficient evidence of the property's value but affirmed the burglary adjudication.
The evidence was insufficient to support the grand theft adjudication because the value of the property was not proven to be $300 or more. The adjudication for burglary was proper.
[1] Evidence insufficient to establish the value of property for grand theft requires reversal of the adjudication of delinquency for grand theft and remand for adjudication…
[2] Fingerprints found in private areas not accessible to the general public are legally sufficient evidence to infer the prints were made at the time of the crime.
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“As to the grand theft charge, the State properly concedes that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was insufficient to establish that the value of the property was $300 or more.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the grand theft adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe juvenile, M.M., was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft and burglary. The State conceded that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearin…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
CORRECTED OPINION
On Appellant’s motion for rehearing or clarification, we withdraw our previously-issued opinion and issue the following opinion in its place.
*1292Appellant, M.M., appeals the trial court’s finding and adjudication of delinquency on the charges of grand theft and burglary. As to the grand theft charge, the State properly concedes that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was insufficient to establish that the value of the property was $300 or more. See § 812.041(2)(c)l, Fla. Stat. (2009); AD. v. State, 30 So.3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Therefore, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency as to the grand theft charge and remand with directions to enter an adjudication of delinquency for petit theft.
Finding no merit as to the remaining points on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s findings and adjudications in all other respects. See Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that where fingerprints “are located in a place, on an object, or on a particular part of an object to which the general public does not have access, the hypothesis that the print was not placed on the object at the time of the crime is not one which the court must declare reasonable as a matter of law, and it remains for the jury to determine its reasonableness.... [S]uch proof, standing alone, is legally sufficient, and the jury may infer from it that the print was made at the time of the crime”); Roberts v. State, 268 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (holding motion for judgment of acquittal properly denied where defendant’s fingerprints were found on kitchen doorjamb, on cigarette lighter in bedroom, and on windowsill in bedroom; prints were left in a private home in areas or on objects not accessible to general public); Summerson v. State, 200 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (holding fingerprint evidence sufficient to support conviction where dentist’s office was broken into and defendant’s fingerprint was found on a file cabinet located in a private area not accessible to patients or the general public).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.O. v. State, 255 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, must decide whether reasonable-minded jurors could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the fingerprints were made at the time the crime was committed.") (Footnotes omitted). See also M.M. v. State, 87 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; Summerson v. State, 200 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) ; Amell v. State, 438 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Summerson v. State, 200 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Roberts v. State, 268 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)