F.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

F.C. v. State

50 So. 3d 796, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 37

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-301

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 So. 3d 796 (F.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

F.C. v. State, 50 So. 3d 796, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 37 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant appeals from a withhold of adjudication and order of probation. We affirm.

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal and convicting him of attempted robbery where the evidence showed he voluntarily abandoned his attempt to commit the robbery. We find the defendant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. The defendant did not abandon the rob[797]*797bery. Instead, according to the defendant’s own testimony, either the victim started to walk away (under one version of the facts); or, he was hit by another person (under another version of the facts). In either case, the defendant did not voluntarily abandon the robbery. See Carroll v. State, 680 So.2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (noting that the law distinguishes between a voluntary abandonment and an involuntary abandonment, and an involuntary abandonment is not a defense).

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant appeals from a withhold of adjudication and order of probation. We affirm.

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal and convicting him of attempted robbery where the evidence showed he voluntarily abandoned his attempt to commit the robbery. We find the defendant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. The defendant did not abandon the rob[797]*797bery. Instead, according to the defendant’s own testimony, either the victim started to walk away (under one version of the facts); or, he was hit by another person (under another version of the facts). In either case, the defendant did not voluntarily abandon the robbery. See Carroll v. State, 680 So.2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (noting that the law distinguishes between a voluntary abandonment and an involuntary abandonment, and an involuntary abandonment is not a defense).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 3d 796, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fc-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack