C.A.M. v. State (776 So. 2d 1091, 2001)

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVY and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.

RAMIREZ, J.,

dissenting.

I dissent because the state offered no evidence in its case-in-chief that on the day the defendant was arrested for trespassing he was not “authorized, licensed, or invited” to be on the premises. See § 810.09(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999); Seago v. State, 768 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).