In the Interest of J.J.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of J.J.

542 So. 2d 1070, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1211, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2694

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 17, 1989·No. No. 88-1095·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the evidence in the record, we affirm the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for grand theft. We note that the error in admitting the irrelevant contents of an unidentified telephone call was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). However, the state concedes that appellant’s additional adjudication for petty theft should be reversed. See Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla.1951). The order of delinquency is therefore reversed and remanded for modification.

HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the evidence in the record, we affirm the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for grand theft. We note that the error in admitting the irrelevant contents of an unidentified telephone call was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). However, the state concedes that appellant’s additional adjudication for petty theft should be reversed. See Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla.1951). The order of delinquency is therefore reversed and remanded for modification.

HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

In the Interest of J.J., 542 So. 2d 1070, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1211, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2694 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

542 So. 2d 1070 (In the Interest of J.J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related