K. R. M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K. R. M. v. State

360 So. 2d 806, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1978

DocketNo. JJ-79

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 So. 2d 806 (K. R. M. 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

K. R. M. v. State, 360 So. 2d 806, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review and reversal of an adjudication of delinquency on a charge of first degree arson. Damage to a “structure” is an essential element to the [807]*807crime proscribed by F.S. 806.01. “Structure” is specifically defined by F.S. 806.-01(3) as meaning “any building of any kind, any enclosed area with a roof over it, and any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.” A reading of the record sub judice reveals substantial evidence of appellant’s misuse of fire and is certainly sufficient to sustain a finding that he willfully and maliciously, by fire, damaged personal property within a structure. However, the essential element of damage to a structure, as defined in the statute, is absent. Had appellant’s adjudication of delinquency been on a charge of criminal mischief, proscribed by F.S. 806.13, we would affirm because we find the other points raised by appellant to be without merit.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur. McCORD, C. J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review and reversal of an adjudication of delinquency on a charge of first degree arson. Damage to a “structure” is an essential element to the [807]*807crime proscribed by F.S. 806.01. “Structure” is specifically defined by F.S. 806.-01(3) as meaning “any building of any kind, any enclosed area with a roof over it, and any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.” A reading of the record sub judice reveals substantial evidence of appellant’s misuse of fire and is certainly sufficient to sustain a finding that he willfully and maliciously, by fire, damaged personal property within a structure. However, the essential element of damage to a structure, as defined in the statute, is absent. Had appellant’s adjudication of delinquency been on a charge of criminal mischief, proscribed by F.S. 806.13, we would affirm because we find the other points raised by appellant to be without merit.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur. McCORD, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 So. 2d 806, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-r-m-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack