T.L.J. v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2112,83-2112 |
| Parties | T.L.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Amelia G. Brown, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary O. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent pursuant to a petition charging burglary with intent to commit theft. We reverse upon the authority of Bennett v. State, 438 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), because there was insufficient evidence to prove that appellant intended to steal anything when he entered the house trailer. Since the state charged appellant with intending to commit a specific offense, it may not rely upon the presumption afforded by section 810.07, Florida Statutes (1981).
Our decision conflicts with L.S. v. State, 446 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), in which the court said:
If the state were precluded from using the presumption by virtue of charging the intent to commit a specific offense, there would be no incentive for the state to ever enumerate the particular offense. We hold, therefore, that when the state charges that the defendant did intend to commit a specific offense after the breaking and entering, it may avail itself of section 810.07.
We appreciate the concern expressed by our sister court. It further appears that by seeking a bill of particulars, a defendant may be able to circumvent section 810.07, Florida Statutes (1981), even when the state does not allege the intent to commit a specific offense. Nevertheless, our interpretation of State v. Waters, 436 So.2d 66 (Fla.1983), compels us to reaffirm the conclusion we reached in Bennett.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frederick v. State
...5th DCA 1984), and Frederick v. State, 451 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflict with T.L.J. v. State, 449 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), quashed, 464 So.2d 1196 (Fla.1985); and Bennett v. State, 438 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V......
-
Frederick v. State, 83-1431
...for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Frederick v. State, 451 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). But see T.L.J. v. State, 449 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bennett v. State, 438 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) with which this decision is in AFFIRMED. COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH and......
-
Frederick v. State, 83-1432
...offense. The Second District has held that the state, under such circumstances, may not rely on the presumption. T.L.J. v. State, 449 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bennett v. State, 438 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The Third District takes the opposite position, based upon the following ......
-
State v. T.L.J.
...Circuit, Tampa, for respondent. ADKINS, Justice. The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, T.L.J. v. State, 449 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of other district courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction under article V, secti......