I.R. v. State
In a juvenile delinquency appeal from a conviction under section 836.10 (written threats), I.R. argued the trial court erred by treating the offense as general rather than specific intent, but the Sixth DCA held this argument was unpreserved because I.R. had argued the opposite below. The court also declined to address the State's concession that the trial court should have applied the recklessness standard from Counterman v. Colorado, since neither party had standing or a proper vehicle to raise that issue on appeal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Key facts
- I.R., a juvenile, was convicted in trial court of violating section 836.10 (written threats) and sentenced accordingly.
- At trial, I.R. argued the offense required general intent; on appeal, I.R. argued it required specific intent instead.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to criminal appellate practitioners for its clear application of Florida's strict preservation rules: raising a specific intent argument on appeal that contradicts the argument made at trial… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.