D.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.F. v. State

721 So. 2d 765, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14723, 1998 WL 796661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-0653

StatusPublished

This text of 721 So. 2d 765 (D.F. 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.F. v. State, 721 So. 2d 765, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14723, 1998 WL 796661 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for petit theft of money from Wendy’s restaurant, appellant’s place of employment. Appellant’s statements to his coworker, Jessica Tirone, distinguish this case from Luscomb v. State, 660 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Appellant’s statements established that he was actively searching for money shortly before the theft was discovered and that he asked Ti-rone to take money from her cash register. A short time later, appellant showed off a wad of cash. Tirone testified that she “had a clue that the back register would have come out short” because appellant was “trying to get the girl’s attention. She was doing dishes.” Tirone explained that when it was not busy in the restaurant, the employee working the back register was supposed to [766]*766wash dishes, thereby leaving the register unattended.

The trial court stayed the imposition of community control pending this appeal. Both sides agree that on remand, the term of community control must be specified and that it cannot exceed six months. See § 39.054(l)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (1995); § 985.231(l)(a)l.a, Fla. Stat. (1997).

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for petit theft of money from Wendy’s restaurant, appellant’s place of employment. Appellant’s statements to his coworker, Jessica Tirone, distinguish this case from Luscomb v. State, 660 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Appellant’s statements established that he was actively searching for money shortly before the theft was discovered and that he asked Ti-rone to take money from her cash register. A short time later, appellant showed off a wad of cash. Tirone testified that she “had a clue that the back register would have come out short” because appellant was “trying to get the girl’s attention. She was doing dishes.” Tirone explained that when it was not busy in the restaurant, the employee working the back register was supposed to [766]*766wash dishes, thereby leaving the register unattended.

The trial court stayed the imposition of community control pending this appeal. Both sides agree that on remand, the term of community control must be specified and that it cannot exceed six months. See § 39.054(l)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (1995); § 985.231(l)(a)l.a, Fla. Stat. (1997).

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 So. 2d 765, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14723, 1998 WL 796661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/df-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack