C.P.C. v. State, 5D14–4442.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D14–4442.,5D14–4442. |
| Citation | 179 So.3d 376 |
| Parties | C.P.C., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
179 So.3d 376
C.P.C., A Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D14–4442.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 30, 2015.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rose M. Levering, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
C.P.C. appeals the trial court's order adjudicating him delinquent for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of dismissal. We agree and reverse.
Jeremy Paxton returned home from work to discover his bedroom in disarray. At the time, he did not notice anything missing. However, a few days later, he discovered that his PlayStation 3, Fossil watch, and iPod Touch had disappeared, and contacted the Marion County Sheriff's Department. The responding deputy concluded that the thief entered through a window at the rear of Mr. Paxton's apartment, as the curtains were torn and the screen was on the ground outside the window. The window slid up, measured three feet wide by five feet tall, was about two feet from the ground, and faced a then-
vacant apartment building about fifty feet away. Although a sidewalk connected the doors of the two apartment buildings, no sidewalk went past Mr. Paxton's window. The deputy pulled five latent fingerprints from the bottom window pane, three of which belonged to C.P.C., who was subsequently charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. At the adjudicatory hearing, C.P.C. moved for judgment of dismissal, contending that there was no evidence as to when the fingerprints were left on the window and they were in a place accessible to the public. The trial court denied the motion and adjudicated C.P.C. guilty.
A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the State's evidence and is reviewed de novo.1 A.P.R. v. State, 894 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). A defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal when a fingerprint is found on an item or in an area accessible to the general public, and no evidence establishes that the print was made at the time of the crime. K.S. v. State, 814 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.S. v. State
...alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. See Leonard v. State, 731 So. 2d 712, 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; C.P.C. v. State, 179 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("Consistent with that rule, a fingerprint left in a location accessible by the public, without more, is insufficient to est......
- Santiago v. Leon
- Lippens v. Powers, 5D14–4362.
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...of dismissal reversed, because no evidence was established that the fingerprints were made at the time of the crime. C.P.C. v. State, 179 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) The court properly denies a motion for judgment of acquittal when there is contradictory evidence, because the weight of t......