C. M. I. AND A. R., JUVENILES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a conviction for both larceny and buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property involving the same property is legally inconsistent. The court affirmed the adjudication for receiving stolen property but reversed the adjudication for larceny.
Two appellants were adjudicated delinquent based on findings of guilt for larceny and buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. Both argued in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Buying, Receiving Or Concealing Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were adjudicated delinquent by the Circuit Court Juvenile Division of Dade County. The adjudication was based upon a finding that C. M. I. was guilty of larceny and buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. The court found that A. R. was delinquent because of his participation in buying, receiving or concealing stolen property.
Both appellants contend that the court erred in adjudicating them delinquent because there was insufficient proof adduced at trial to establish an essential element of the offense, to-wit, that appellants had knowledge that the property was stolen.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and have concluded that there is no merit in such contention. State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970).
Appellant, C. M. I., raises an additional point in his appeal. He argues that the trial court erred in adjudicating him delinquent because he was found guilty of both larceny and buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. We agree and reverse that portion of the order appealed that finds him guilty of larceny. However, the adjudication of delinquency with reference to buying, receiving or concealing stolen property stands affirmed. A conviction of both larceny and buying, receiving or concealing stolen property is inconsistent in law where, as here, the same property is involved. The state concedes that this was error. Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11 (1928); R. A. B. v. State, 316 So. 2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. W. P. v. State, 354 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…roperty. See Ketelsen v. State, 211 So. 2d 853 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Thomas v. State, 216 So. 2d 25 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); E. C. v. State, 280 So. 2d 492 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); McWhirter v. State, 325 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); C. M. I. and A. R. v. State, 335 So. 2d 868 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- R. A. B. v. State, 316 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)