V. J. T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

V. J. T. v. State

390 So. 2d 1212, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18176

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2415

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 390 So. 2d 1212 (V. J. 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

V. J. T. v. State, 390 So. 2d 1212, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18176 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The findings of delinquency which are under review by this appeal are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the appellant has failed to attack the finding of delinquency on the petit larceny count entered below, and, indeed, concedes in his brief that this finding should be affirmed; and (2) the appellant has failed to preserve for appellate review the sole ground which he now urges in attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of delinquency on the burglary count entered below because: (a) this ground was admittedly never raised in appellant’s oral motions for judgment of acquittal made at trial; and (b) this ground, contrary to appellant’s contention, was never raised in appellant’s oral motion to vacate [see Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.230] made subsequent to trial as said motion merely raised a conclusory and vague collage of grounds, essentially relating to the constitutionality of the burglary statute, and referred only slightly and in a confused manner to the failure of the state to prove the burglary element of entering or remaining in the subject vehicle [which, in any event, is quite different from the contention now raised on appeal, based on State v. Hankins, 376 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), that the state failed to establish the burglary element of an intent to commit an offense therein]. Daley v. State, 374 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The findings of delinquency which are under review by this appeal are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the appellant has failed to attack the finding of delinquency on the petit larceny count entered below, and, indeed, concedes in his brief that this finding should be affirmed; and (2) the appellant has failed to preserve for appellate review the sole ground which he now urges in attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of delinquency on the burglary count entered below because: (a) this ground was admittedly never raised in appellant’s oral motions for judgment of acquittal made at trial; and (b) this ground, contrary to appellant’s contention, was never raised in appellant’s oral motion to vacate [see Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.230] made subsequent to trial as said motion merely raised a conclusory and vague collage of grounds, essentially relating to the constitutionality of the burglary statute, and referred only slightly and in a confused manner to the failure of the state to prove the burglary element of entering or remaining in the subject vehicle [which, in any event, is quite different from the contention now raised on appeal, based on State v. Hankins, 376 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), that the state failed to establish the burglary element of an intent to commit an offense therein]. Daley v. State, 374 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 So. 2d 1212, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/v-j-t-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack