R.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.D. v. State

517 So. 2d 70, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2868, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11616, 1987 WL 2692

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 517 So. 2d 70 (R.D. 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

R.D. v. State, 517 So. 2d 70, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2868, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11616, 1987 WL 2692 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

The petition for delinquency stated that the criminal mischief charged therein was a misdemeanor in the first degree notwithstanding that the alleged damage to the property was $200 or less, making the charge in fact a misdemeanor in the second degree. § 806.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985). Although we do not entirely share the appellant’s concern that the trial court’s finding that he “committed the act(s) described in the petition” will be understood to mean that the juvenile has been adjudicated guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor, we nonetheless, with an abundance of caution and the State’s concurrence, remand the case to the trial court with directions that the order of adjudication be amended to clarify that the juvenile was found guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor.

Remanded with directions.

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

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

The petition for delinquency stated that the criminal mischief charged therein was a misdemeanor in the first degree notwithstanding that the alleged damage to the property was $200 or less, making the charge in fact a misdemeanor in the second degree. § 806.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985). Although we do not entirely share the appellant’s concern that the trial court’s finding that he “committed the act(s) described in the petition” will be understood to mean that the juvenile has been adjudicated guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor, we nonetheless, with an abundance of caution and the State’s concurrence, remand the case to the trial court with directions that the order of adjudication be amended to clarify that the juvenile was found guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor.

Remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 70, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2868, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11616, 1987 WL 2692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rd-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack