In the Interest of N.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of N.C. v. State

581 So. 2d 647, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2050

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 647 (In the Interest of N.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

In the Interest of N.C. v. State, 581 So. 2d 647, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Sua sponte we grant rehearing and substitute the following for our previous opinions:

We reverse appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for grand theft of an automobile. Appellant’s “mere presence as an after-acquired passenger in a vehicle, with knowledge that it has been stolen, [was] insufficient to convict [him] of [automobile] theft.” State v. G.C., 572 So.2d 1380, 1382 (Fla.1991).

Although section 924.34 of the Florida Statutes (1989) gives an appellate court the authority to direct a trial court to enter judgment for a lesser offense, the supreme court recently held in Gould v. State, 577 So.2d 1302 (Fla.1991), that the section only applies to category one lesser included offenses.¹ It rejected the argument that the section also includes category two lesser included offenses.² Id. at 1304. The Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses does not list a category one lesser offense for the charged offense of grand theft — third degree. Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3/89, p. 293. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to discharge appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Sua sponte we grant rehearing and substitute the following for our previous opinions:

We reverse appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for grand theft of an automobile. Appellant’s “mere presence as an after-acquired passenger in a vehicle, with knowledge that it has been stolen, [was] insufficient to convict [him] of [automobile] theft.” State v. G.C., 572 So.2d 1380, 1382 (Fla.1991).

Although section 924.34 of the Florida Statutes (1989) gives an appellate court the authority to direct a trial court to enter judgment for a lesser offense, the supreme court recently held in Gould v. State, 577 So.2d 1302 (Fla.1991), that the section only applies to category one lesser included offenses.¹ It rejected the argument that the section also includes category two lesser included offenses.² Id. at 1304. The Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses does not list a category one lesser offense for the charged offense of grand theft — third degree. Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3/89, p. 293. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to discharge appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 647, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-nc-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack