T.G.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.G.B. v. State

405 So. 2d 427, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 1981

DocketNo. 80-2236

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 427 (T.G.B. 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

T.G.B. v. State, 405 So. 2d 427, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21040 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

The trial court adjudicated the juvenile T.G.B. as delinquent based on a finding that he had committed arson, burglary and theft.

T.G.B. was one of five persons seen by Officer Dunlop fleeing a building shortly before a fire broke out and was one of four apprehended after a foot chase. Officer Pitts testified that nearly fifty persons hurriedly exited the building at the same time, carrying or dropping stolen merchandise.

There is no evidence that T.G.B. carried or dropped stolen merchandise when he exited the building. There is no evidence that he committed an arson nor that he aided or abetted another in the commission of that offense. The trial court could reasonably have found the direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that T.G.B. entered the structure with intent to commit an offense therein, to wit, theft, and that at the time of entry, the premises were not open to the public and T.G.B. had no invitation or license to enter. § 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1979). Intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence. R.A. v. State, 400 So.2d 1059 (Fla.3d DCA).

Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency but only as to the offense of burglary.

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

FERGUSON, Judge.

The trial court adjudicated the juvenile T.G.B. as delinquent based on a finding that he had committed arson, burglary and theft.

T.G.B. was one of five persons seen by Officer Dunlop fleeing a building shortly before a fire broke out and was one of four apprehended after a foot chase. Officer Pitts testified that nearly fifty persons hurriedly exited the building at the same time, carrying or dropping stolen merchandise.

There is no evidence that T.G.B. carried or dropped stolen merchandise when he exited the building. There is no evidence that he committed an arson nor that he aided or abetted another in the commission of that offense. The trial court could reasonably have found the direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that T.G.B. entered the structure with intent to commit an offense therein, to wit, theft, and that at the time of entry, the premises were not open to the public and T.G.B. had no invitation or license to enter. § 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1979). Intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence. R.A. v. State, 400 So.2d 1059 (Fla.3d DCA).

Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency but only as to the offense of burglary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 427, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tgb-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack