Skip to main content

Burrell v. State

Citations

  • 601 So. 2d 628
  • 1992 WL 143651

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that conviction of a crime, where essential elements were not established, was fundamental error, but pointing out that the failure in proof could not have been corrected if the issue had been raised in the trial court.
  • noting that the case was not one in which the State's failure to prove the offense was a technical matter that could have been resolved below if raised, but rather it was clear that the State could not prove an essential element because the facts did not support it
  • under Florida statute, a defendant cannot be convicted for both second degree grand theft and dealing in stolen property when one scheme or course of conduct is involved
  • “[I]t would be fundamental error not to correct on appeal a situation where [a defendant] stands convicted of a crime that never occurred.” (second alteration in original) (quoting Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Altenbernd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.