Reynoso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reynoso v. State

621 So. 2d 558, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7379, 1993 WL 259569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2705

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 621 So. 2d 558 (Reynoso 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

Reynoso v. State, 621 So. 2d 558, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7379, 1993 WL 259569 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Deogracia Reynoso, seeks reversal of his conviction of burglary and sentence of one year probation. The thrust of his argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case and it further erred in imposing a sentence of one year probation. We reverse on both points.

Deogracia was charged with burglarizing his former place of employment several months after he had been discharged. The evidence adduced by the state was in great measure circumstantial. The most damning evidence however was fingerprints found on a broken window where entry had been effected. The fingerprints belonged to Deogracia. Furthermore, the evidence also showed that the inside of the window had been tinted after Deogracia’s departure. Be that as it may, the evidence fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [559]*559the prints were found on the inside of the window as opposed to the outside thereof. This is vital to proving a circumstantial evidence case on this record.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying Deogracia’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence and remand with directions to discharge appellant.

GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Deogracia Reynoso, seeks reversal of his conviction of burglary and sentence of one year probation. The thrust of his argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case and it further erred in imposing a sentence of one year probation. We reverse on both points.

Deogracia was charged with burglarizing his former place of employment several months after he had been discharged. The evidence adduced by the state was in great measure circumstantial. The most damning evidence however was fingerprints found on a broken window where entry had been effected. The fingerprints belonged to Deogracia. Furthermore, the evidence also showed that the inside of the window had been tinted after Deogracia’s departure. Be that as it may, the evidence fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [559]*559the prints were found on the inside of the window as opposed to the outside thereof. This is vital to proving a circumstantial evidence case on this record.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying Deogracia’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence and remand with directions to discharge appellant.

GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 So. 2d 558, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7379, 1993 WL 259569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynoso-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack