M.K.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.K.T. v. State

685 So. 2d 995, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1997 WL 1823

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 1997

DocketNo. 96-649

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 685 So. 2d 995 (M.K.T. 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

M.K.T. v. State, 685 So. 2d 995, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1997 WL 1823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

M.K.T., a juvenile, has appealed her convictions for aimed trespass while armed with a firearm in two vehicles — a Jeep and a Ford Explorer. Her argument on each charge is simple: there was no evidence that she, personally, ever carried any weapon during the incidents that gave rise to these charges in each case. She admits the trespasses but denies being armed. The state’s response is also simple: she was guilty as a principal for participating in the offenses with two accomplices who clearly were armed with firearms. We agree with the argument of the state. See Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

We find merit, however, in the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in this case by entering an order revoking her driving privileges for six months. The order was entered seven days after the instant appeal was filed, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. Moreover, M.K.T. was never charged or adjudicated delinquent for possession of a firearm by a minor under subsections 790.22(3) and (5), Florida ■ Statutes (1995). Accordingly, we quash the order of revocation of driving privileges entered by the trial court on March 8, 1996.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

M.K.T., a juvenile, has appealed her convictions for aimed trespass while armed with a firearm in two vehicles — a Jeep and a Ford Explorer. Her argument on each charge is simple: there was no evidence that she, personally, ever carried any weapon during the incidents that gave rise to these charges in each case. She admits the trespasses but denies being armed. The state’s response is also simple: she was guilty as a principal for participating in the offenses with two accomplices who clearly were armed with firearms. We agree with the argument of the state. See Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

We find merit, however, in the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in this case by entering an order revoking her driving privileges for six months. The order was entered seven days after the instant appeal was filed, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. Moreover, M.K.T. was never charged or adjudicated delinquent for possession of a firearm by a minor under subsections 790.22(3) and (5), Florida ■ Statutes (1995). Accordingly, we quash the order of revocation of driving privileges entered by the trial court on March 8, 1996.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 995, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1997 WL 1823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mkt-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack