D.C.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.C.C. v. State

141 So. 3d 781, 2014 WL 3407083, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5422

StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 3d 781 (D.C.C. 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

D.C.C. v. State, 141 So. 3d 781, 2014 WL 3407083, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN NORTWICK, J.

D.C.C. was charged to be a delinquent for his participation in the robbery of a bicycle. Because the State did not prove the use of force was motivated for the purpose of obtaining the bicycle, we reverse.

D.C.C. and two other middle schoolers (C.B.B. and Z.M.B.), were charged with robbery of the bicycle of fellow student, O.A. The three boys were tried together. This court has reversed the final disposition orders of D.C.C.’s co-defendants because the State did not adduce evidence showing the force used against the victim was in furtherance of a plan to obtain the victim’s bicycle. C.B.B. v. State, 135 So.3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Z.M.B. v. State, 139 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). This failure of proof also requires reversal in the case at bar.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the final disposition order entered against D.C.C. and REMAND for entry of a judgment of dismissal.

CLARK, J., concurs, and ROBERTS, J., concurs in result only.

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

VAN NORTWICK, J.

D.C.C. was charged to be a delinquent for his participation in the robbery of a bicycle. Because the State did not prove the use of force was motivated for the purpose of obtaining the bicycle, we reverse.

D.C.C. and two other middle schoolers (C.B.B. and Z.M.B.), were charged with robbery of the bicycle of fellow student, O.A. The three boys were tried together. This court has reversed the final disposition orders of D.C.C.’s co-defendants because the State did not adduce evidence showing the force used against the victim was in furtherance of a plan to obtain the victim’s bicycle. C.B.B. v. State, 135 So.3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Z.M.B. v. State, 139 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). This failure of proof also requires reversal in the case at bar.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the final disposition order entered against D.C.C. and REMAND for entry of a judgment of dismissal.

CLARK, J., concurs, and ROBERTS, J., concurs in result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 3d 781, 2014 WL 3407083, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dcc-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack