A.B., 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.
A.B., a juvenile, appeals orders requiring restitution of $255 for grand theft and burglary of an automobile and adjudicating him delinquent with probation. The court affirms the restitution order but remands for corrected adjudication orders reflecting an acquittal on one count and ensuring proper disposition orders with statutory maximums.
The restitution order of $255 is affirmed because A.B. was in possession of the stolen automobile when the damage occurred. The delinquency adjudication is affirmed but the case is remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected adjudicatory order reflecting an acquittal on count three and to enter separate disposition orders for each offense specifying the degree and limiting the sentence to the statutory maximum.
“the record is clear that A.B. was in possession of the stolen automobile when the steering column was broken. Thus, upon conviction of grand theft of that automobile, the trial court was correct in ordering A.B. to pay the $255.00 in restitution.”
Establishes the factual and legal basis for affirming the restitution order based on possession of the stolen vehicle and the damage caused.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.B. was convicted of grand theft and burglary of an automobile. He was found in possession of the stolen automobile when the steering column was brok…
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A.B. appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $255 in restitution as a result of his conviction for grand theft and burglary of an automobile. A.B. further appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating him delinquent and placing him on probation. We affirm and remand with instructions.
First, we find that the record is clear that A.B. was in possession of the stolen automobile when the steering column was broken. Thus, upon conviction of grand theft of that automobile, the trial court was correct in ordering A.B. to pay the $255.00 in restitution. Accordingly, the trial court’s restitution order is affirmed. See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985) and A.G. v. State, 718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Second, with respect to the adjudication of delinquency, the State having no objection, we remand this case so that the trial court can enter a corrected adjudicatory order, indicating that A.B. was acquitted on count three. The trial court is also to enter a separate disposition order for each offense, specifying the degree of the offense and limiting the sentence to the statutory maximum. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(c)(2).
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. State, 102 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…hird District hold that a pending rule 3.850 appeal does not deprive the postconviction court of jurisdiction to consider a rule 3.800 motion raising unrelated grounds. See Espinosa v. State, 997 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Smith v. State, 858 So. 2d 386, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The Second District is not free from inconsistency either, as the Bates rule evolved without this court expressly receding from the Gobie rule. As a result, outdated holdings may still appear to be good law, and trial court…
-
Dugan v. State, 885 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…05, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 727 So. 2d 906 (1998), “an appeal of a post-conviction relief matter does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction where, as here, the issues raised in the two cases are unrelated.” See also Smith v. State, 858 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (a pending appeal of a 3.850 motion did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to consider a 3.800 motion raising unrelated grounds); Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding the trial court did not lose ju…
Authorities Cited
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- A.G. v. State, 718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)