Interest of D. E. I. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Interest of D. E. I. v. State

264 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1972

DocketNo. 72-206

StatusPublished

This text of 264 So. 2d 857 (Interest of D. E. I. 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

Interest of D. E. I. v. State, 264 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent because he was found to be in possession of a firearm. This appeal was duly prosecuted and urges insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that the juvenile had possession of the firearm. With commendable candor, the State concedes the lack of evidence to show possession in the juvenile and confesses error. See: Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 683.

We therefore dispense with oral argument pursuant to Rule 3.10, subd. e, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and reverse the adjudication determining the juvenile to be delinquent, with directions to discharge him from said proceeding.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent because he was found to be in possession of a firearm. This appeal was duly prosecuted and urges insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that the juvenile had possession of the firearm. With commendable candor, the State concedes the lack of evidence to show possession in the juvenile and confesses error. See: Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 683.

We therefore dispense with oral argument pursuant to Rule 3.10, subd. e, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and reverse the adjudication determining the juvenile to be delinquent, with directions to discharge him from said proceeding.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interest-of-d-e-i-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack