D.O.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.O.A. v. State

941 So. 2d 1244, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19277, 2006 WL 3327669

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 17, 2006·No. No. 5D06-826·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

D.O.A. was adjudicated guilty of two counts of burglary of a dwelling in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (2006). He appeals the adjudication of only one count, contending that there was insufficient evidence that he entered or remained in the dwelling of Kimberly [1245]*1245Waddy. Based on our review of the record, we agree. Ms. Waddy opened the door that D.O.A. was rattling and was about to enter, causing him to run away. Thus, Ms. Waddy prevented a burglary that no doubt would have been completed but for her fortuitous intervention.

We reverse one adjudication of burglary of a dwelling and remand with directions that the adjudication be amended to reflect the offense of attempted burglary of a dwelling, which was clearly shown by the evidence. The remaining burglary adjudication is unaffected.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

D.O.A. was adjudicated guilty of two counts of burglary of a dwelling in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (2006). He appeals the adjudication of only one count, contending that there was insufficient evidence that he entered or remained in the dwelling of Kimberly [1245]*1245Waddy. Based on our review of the record, we agree. Ms. Waddy opened the door that D.O.A. was rattling and was about to enter, causing him to run away. Thus, Ms. Waddy prevented a burglary that no doubt would have been completed but for her fortuitous intervention.

We reverse one adjudication of burglary of a dwelling and remand with directions that the adjudication be amended to reflect the offense of attempted burglary of a dwelling, which was clearly shown by the evidence. The remaining burglary adjudication is unaffected.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

D.O.A. v. State, 941 So. 2d 1244, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19277, 2006 WL 3327669 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

941 So. 2d 1244 (D.O.A. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.