E.M.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.M.M. v. State

836 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1374, 2003 WL 289490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-2596

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 836 So. 2d 1125 (E.M.M. 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.M.M. v. State, 836 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1374, 2003 WL 289490 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The only point raised on this appeal from a finding of delinquency based upon an aggravated battery is that the three-foot long broomstick used by the juvenile’s co-respondent to strike the victim did not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). We disagree and affirm. See H.E.S. v. State, 773 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Mitchell v. State, 698 So.2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 701 So.2d 868 (Fla.1997), approved, 703 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1997); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See generally D.C. v. State, 567 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Compare Forchion v. State, 214 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)(broom handle thrown at victim not used as a deadly weapon); Perez v. State, 825 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(barricade thrown at victim not used as deadly weapon).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The only point raised on this appeal from a finding of delinquency based upon an aggravated battery is that the three-foot long broomstick used by the juvenile’s co-respondent to strike the victim did not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). We disagree and affirm. See H.E.S. v. State, 773 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Mitchell v. State, 698 So.2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 701 So.2d 868 (Fla.1997), approved, 703 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1997); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See generally D.C. v. State, 567 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Compare Forchion v. State, 214 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)(broom handle thrown at victim not used as a deadly weapon); Perez v. State, 825 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(barricade thrown at victim not used as deadly weapon).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1374, 2003 WL 289490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emm-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack