E. H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E. H. v. State

170 So. 3d 957, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11895, 2015 WL 4732706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 2015

DocketNo. 1D15-1492

StatusPublished

This text of 170 So. 3d 957 (E. H. 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

E. H. v. State, 170 So. 3d 957, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11895, 2015 WL 4732706 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding of guilt, delinquency adjudication, and corresponding sentence, because the State put forth evidence as to each element sufficient to withstand Appellant’s motion for judgment of dismissal (JOD) on the merits. [958]*958We write to reaffirm and emphasize the long-standing principle that a juvenile defendant-is not required to renew a motion for JOD after presenting evidence. Morris v. State, 721 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla.1998); see also In re T.M.M., 560 So.2d 805, 806-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (applying same rule in juvenile context). Despite the State’s unsupported assertion to the contrary, a defense motion at the close of the State’s case-in-chief is sufficient to preserve any specific argument made therein. The JOD motion raises the issue and provides the court an opportunity to rule on that precise issue. Renewal is not necessary for preservation purposes. Morris, 721 So.2d at 727; see also § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (defining “preserved”).

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding of guilt, delinquency adjudication, and corresponding sentence, because the State put forth evidence as to each element sufficient to withstand Appellant’s motion for judgment of dismissal (JOD) on the merits. [958]*958We write to reaffirm and emphasize the long-standing principle that a juvenile defendant-is not required to renew a motion for JOD after presenting evidence. Morris v. State, 721 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla.1998); see also In re T.M.M., 560 So.2d 805, 806-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (applying same rule in juvenile context). Despite the State’s unsupported assertion to the contrary, a defense motion at the close of the State’s case-in-chief is sufficient to preserve any specific argument made therein. The JOD motion raises the issue and provides the court an opportunity to rule on that precise issue. Renewal is not necessary for preservation purposes. Morris, 721 So.2d at 727; see also § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (defining “preserved”).

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 So. 3d 957, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11895, 2015 WL 4732706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-h-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack