E.M.M. v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The only point raised on this appeal from a finding of delinquency based upon an aggravated battery is that the three-foot long broomstick used by the juvenile’s co-respondent to strike the victim did not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). We disagree and affirm. See H.E.S. v. State, 773 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Mitchell v. State, 698 So.2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 701 So.2d 868 (Fla.1997), approved, 703 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1997); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See generally D.C. v. State,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mitchell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- D.C. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Forchion v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Taylor v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
- H.E.S. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- A.L.M. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
- Rudin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015