S.M.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.M.R. v. State

596 So. 2d 676, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11928, 1991 WL 248629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 27, 1991

DocketNo. 91-00116

StatusPublished

This text of 596 So. 2d 676 (S.M.R. 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

S.M.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 676, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11928, 1991 WL 248629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss a petition alleging delinquent conduct consisting of grand theft. We reverse. See State v. G.C., 572 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1991).

G.C. contains the following statement which reflects the facts of this case which were incorporated into defendant’s motion to dismiss and which were conceded by the state in the trial court to be not in dispute:

[M]ere presence as an after-acquired passenger in a vehicle, with knowledge that it has been stolen, is insufficient to convict a person of theft under section 812.-014. We agree, however, with the district court that G.C. can be adjudicated delinquent for the lesser offense of trespass to a conveyance. See § 810.08(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Thus, we approve G.C. [v. State, 560 So.2d 1186 (Fla.3d DCA 1990) ] and disapprove D.N. [v. State, 529 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ].

Id. at 1382.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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