Marshall v. State

691 So. 2d 1208, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 1997 WL 194835
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Marshall v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 664 So. 2d 302
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 23, 1997·No. No. 96-2338·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Emmett Marshall, appeals his convictions for burglary and grand theft. We reverse, as the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Marshall actually entered the dwelling, or to connect the property in Marshall’s possession with the property charged in the information. See Stanley v. State, 626 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing a conviction for burglary when the State failed to prove that there was an entry into the store), review denied, 634 So.2d 627 (Fla.1994); C.O. v. State, 557 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reversing an adjudication of delinquency when the State failed to present a prima facie case that the property stolen was the same as that found in defendant’s possession).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant on these charges only.

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

Marshall v. State, 691 So. 2d 1208, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 1997 WL 194835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

691 So. 2d 1208 (Marshall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stanley v. State
626 So. 2d 1004 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
C.O. v. State
557 So. 2d 637 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)