J.C.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.C.C. v. State

694 So. 2d 784, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210, 1997 WL 304502

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4285

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 694 So. 2d 784 (J.C.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

J.C.C. v. State, 694 So. 2d 784, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210, 1997 WL 304502 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

MICKLE, Judge.

Appellants challenge their adjudications of delinquency and commitment for violation of section 39.061, Florida Statutes (1995), which proscribes escapes from various juvenile facilities. The following two issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the trial court should have dismissed the petitions alleging that appellants committed delinquent acts because section 39.061 does not proscribe escapes from “low-risk residential” commitment facilities, as defined in section 39.01(59)(b), Florida Statutes (1995); and (2) whether the lower court erred in denying defense motions for judgments of acquittal. As to the first issue, we affirm on the authority of this court’s recent decision in D.M.L. v. State, 694 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As to the second issue, we conclude that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s findings in support of the adjudications of delinquency. We therefore affirm this issue without further discussion.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

MICKLE, Judge.

Appellants challenge their adjudications of delinquency and commitment for violation of section 39.061, Florida Statutes (1995), which proscribes escapes from various juvenile facilities. The following two issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the trial court should have dismissed the petitions alleging that appellants committed delinquent acts because section 39.061 does not proscribe escapes from “low-risk residential” commitment facilities, as defined in section 39.01(59)(b), Florida Statutes (1995); and (2) whether the lower court erred in denying defense motions for judgments of acquittal. As to the first issue, we affirm on the authority of this court’s recent decision in D.M.L. v. State, 694 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As to the second issue, we conclude that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s findings in support of the adjudications of delinquency. We therefore affirm this issue without further discussion.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 784, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210, 1997 WL 304502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jcc-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack