C.O. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.O. v. State

707 So. 2d 926, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2272, 1998 WL 113577

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1998

DocketNo. 97-0898

StatusPublished

This text of 707 So. 2d 926 (C.O. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C.O. v. State, 707 So. 2d 926, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2272, 1998 WL 113577 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for loitering and prowling. See State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104, 110 (Fla.1975); In re A.R., 460 So.2d 1024, 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

However, the trial court’s adjudication of appellant’s delinquency was rendered without consideration of a predisposition report. See State v. Berry, 647 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla.1994); Harris v. State, 633 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Moreover, there is an absence of specific findings. § 39.052(4)(e)l, Fla.Stat. (1995); J.M. v. State, 692 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); M.C. v. State, 687 So.2d 832, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication and remand.

GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI