G.L. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.L. v. State

517 So. 2d 136, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 117, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11841, 1987 WL 29154

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1774

StatusPublished

This text of 517 So. 2d 136 (G.L. 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

G.L. v. State, 517 So. 2d 136, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 117, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11841, 1987 WL 29154 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

The appellant was charged with petit theft in a petition for delinquency filed on April 9, 1986. The trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged and adjudicated him delinquent. The order of adjudication found that the appellant had committed the offense of “Grand Theft 2nd0” and adjudicated him a delinquent.

The appellant raises several issues on appeal. We find merit only in his contention that the order of adjudication incorrectly states that the court found he had committed the offense of “Grand Theft 2nd0.” The state agrees that the order finding the offense to be “Grand Theft 2nd0” is in error and should reflect the offense of petit theft.

We therefore remand this cause to the trial court with directions to correct the order of adjudication to reflect that the appellant was found to have committed the offense of petit theft. We affirm in all other respects.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

HALL, Judge.

The appellant was charged with petit theft in a petition for delinquency filed on April 9, 1986. The trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged and adjudicated him delinquent. The order of adjudication found that the appellant had committed the offense of “Grand Theft 2nd0” and adjudicated him a delinquent.

The appellant raises several issues on appeal. We find merit only in his contention that the order of adjudication incorrectly states that the court found he had committed the offense of “Grand Theft 2nd0.” The state agrees that the order finding the offense to be “Grand Theft 2nd0” is in error and should reflect the offense of petit theft.

We therefore remand this cause to the trial court with directions to correct the order of adjudication to reflect that the appellant was found to have committed the offense of petit theft. We affirm in all other respects.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 136, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 117, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11841, 1987 WL 29154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gl-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.