I.L.
v.
STATE
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.
Evidence was insufficient to establish burglary because the building under construction lacked a roof, which is a required element of 'structure' under Florida law. The court affirmed the criminal mischief conviction and reversed the probation order, remanding for a new disposition hearing.
[1] A building under construction lacking a roof does not satisfy the statutory definition of 'structure' required as an element of burglary under Florida Statutes section 81…
[2] When insufficient evidence supports one of multiple delinquency findings, the entire disposition order based on the original adjudication must be reversed and remanded fo…
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“"Structure" means a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.”
This establishes the statutory definition of 'structure' that is an essential element of burglary under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceI.L., a juvenile, was charged with burglary of a structure and criminal mischief. The evidence showed that the building at issue was under constructio…
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 Disposition Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-1108 Lower Tribunal No. 16-2646A
________________
I.L., a juvenile,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A. Prescott, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
I.L. appeals the trial court’s order finding him delinquent of burglary and criminal mischief,1 withholding adjudication, and placing him on probation under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
We reverse that portion of the order which determined I.L. committed a burglary, as the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was insufficient to establish one of the elements of this offense. Count One of the petition alleged that
I.L. committed burglary of a structure in violation of section 810.02(4)(a), Florida
Statutes (2016).2 For purposes of Chapter 810 (“Burglary and Trespass”), the term
“structure” is defined in relevant part as follows:
“Structure” means a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.
Burglary is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender does not make an assault or battery and is not and does not become armed with a dangerous weapon or explosive, and the offender enters or remains in a . . . [s]tructure, and there is not another person in the structure at the time the offender enters or remains . . . .
The evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing established that the building at issue was under construction and had no roof. Under these circumstances, the trial court erred in denying I.L.’s motion for judgment of dismissal. Based upon the allegations of the petition, the only necessarily lesser-included offense that the trial court could have considered (trespass of a structure,
see section 810.08) would also have required proof that the “structure” had a roof over it.3 We therefore reverse the order finding I.L. delinquent for the offense of burglary and remand with instructions to enter a judgment of dismissal on that charge.
We affirm the trial court’s order finding I.L. delinquent for the offense of criminal mischief resulting in damage of $200 or less, as there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination. See J.Y. v. State,
332 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (holding: “In examining a record to
determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, an appellate court need only find substantial, competent evidence to support the conclusion.”)
Because we are reversing one of the two offenses for which I.L. was found delinquent, we also reverse the order placing I.L. on probation, and remand for the trial court to conduct a new disposition hearing. See Stanford v. State, 833 So. 2d
174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal of Count One of the petition and for a new disposition hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sigler, 967 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2007)
- J. Y. v. State, 332 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Stanford v. State, 833 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)