final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de
Jesus Santovenia, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 16-1019-A
J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Billie Jan Goldstein,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.
appeals the trial court's order withholding adjudication
of delinquency and placing I.G. on probation for loitering
and prowling, under sections 856.021 and 777.011, Florida
Statutes (2016). We affirm the trial court's order.
I.G. was charged under these statutes, the case went to an
adjudicatory hearing. At the hearing, the State presented
testimony from two police officers, Detective David Mata and
Officer Lexus Guerrero. Detective Mata, from the City of
Homestead Police Department, testified that on Monday, April
11, 2016, at approximately 11:30 p.m., he and his partner
responded to a dispatch call in a gated community regarding
two males looking into vehicles and pulling on door handles
in a parking lot. The community is completely surrounded by
fences and is accessible through gates that require a code
for entry of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Detective Mata
arrived on the scene and remained in his unmarked vehicle,
observing I.G. and the other male, believing they might break
into a vehicle.
approximately five minutes, while he was parked in the center
of the parking lot, Detective Mata saw I.G. looking into
three to four vehicles and pulling on the door handles of
those vehicles. The detective observed I.G. and the other
male walking between cars. Detective Mata testified,
"when they were on the east side of the vehicle I could
see them looking into the cars, but I couldn't see what
they were doing. When they went to the west side of the
vehicles I could see them because there was nothing
obstructing me from seeing them pulling on door handles and
looking in." Detective Mata noticed a male and a female
on a cell phone looking at the two suspects and approaching
I.G. Mata believed they were the witnesses that called 911 to
report the incident. The detective decided to act in order to
avoid any confrontation between I.G., the other male, and the
witnesses. He instructed I.G. to stop, identified himself and
his partner as police officers, and had his weapon drawn.
Detective Mata and his partner asked I.G. and the male to lay
on the ground and show them their hands. The suspects were
then handcuffed. Detective Mata called for marked units to
approach, briefed the officers when they arrived, and left
Lexus Guerrero testified that he responded as a backup
officer, was briefed by the detectives, and spoke to a
witness. Officer Guerrero asked I.G. what he was doing, and
I.G. stated that he was going to a friend's house to
smoke weed at a location approximately four blocks east and
north of the community he was in. Officer Guerrero gave I.G.
an opportunity to explain why he was in the community or
whether he lived in the community, but I.G. could not give
the officer any reason why he was there or how he entered the
community. Officer Guerrero further testified that the area
is known for a lot of motor vehicle burglaries and that I.G.
was 14 years old at the time he was arrested. I.G. was then
arrested and charged with loitering or prowling for his
actions of looking into parked vehicles and pulling on door
handles in violation of sections 856.021 and 777.011, Florida
the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found I.G.
delinquent, withheld adjudication, and sentenced him to
probation. I.G. then appealed.
argues that Detective Mata and his partner arrested him
without first inquiring as to his identity or asking what he
was doing, as required by section 856.021. The State contends
that I.G. was not under arrest when the detectives interacted
with him, but that he was detained for further investigation
based on the observations made by Detective Mata and his
partner. We agree with the State and affirm.
this case involves a trial court's denial of a motion for
judgment of dismissal in an adjudicatory hearing, the
standard of review is de novo. C.W. v.
State, 76 So.3d 1093, 1094 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). When
moving for judgment of dismissal, the movant admits the facts
in evidence, as well as every "conclusion favorable to
the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably
infer from the evidence." A.P.R. v. State, 894
So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citations omitted). In