IN THE INTEREST OF S. E. B., A CHILD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
S.E.B. appeals an adjudication of delinquency, arguing the delinquency petition was filed outside the 30-day statutory deadline. The court agreed, holding that jurisdiction in juvenile court was not divested by the issuance of a defective indictment, and therefore the 30-day filing requirement was mandatory and had been violated.
The court reversed the adjudication of delinquency, holding that the juvenile court's jurisdiction was not divested by the indictment because the charged offense (robbery with a weapon) was not punishable by life imprisonment, and therefore the mandatory 30-day filing requirement applied and was violated. The court rejected the state's argument that the filing deadline should be measured from the dismissal of the indictment rather than from the original intake referral.
[1] A delinquency petition must be dismissed with prejudice if not filed within thirty days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office.
[2] A juvenile court's jurisdiction is not divested by the return of an indictment if the offense charged is not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“On motions by or in behalf of a child, a petition alleging delinquency shall be dismissed with prejudice if it was not filed within 30 days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office.”
This is the statutory provision establishing the mandatory 30-day deadline for filing delinquency petitions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.E.B. was taken into custody for armed robbery on December 26, 1977, and a complaint was filed with the intake officer on December 27, 1977. An indic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Divestiture Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
S.E.B. appeals an order of adjudication of delinquency and urges the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the delinquency petition since it was not filed within thirty (30) days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office. Fla.R. Juv.P. 8.110(e) and Section 39.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977). We agree and reverse.
S.E.B. was taken into custody for an armed robbery on December 26, 1977. The complaint based on this conduct was filed with the appropriate intake officer as required by Section 39.03(2) Florida Statutes (1977) on December 27, 1977. On January 11, 1978, an indictment was returned against S.E.B. alleging that he had committed a robbery with a weapon. S.E.B.’s motion to dismiss the indictment was granted by the circuit court March 27, 1978 on the basis that the indictment was insufficient to charge a juvenile with a criminal offense. The delinquency petition was filed April 24, 1978 (118 days after the complaint was filed with the intake officer). S.E.B. moved to dismiss the delinquency petition as untimely-
Section 39.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977) provides:
(7) On motions by or in behalf of a child, a petition alleging delinquency shall be dismissed with prejudice if it was not filed within 30 days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office.
Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.110(e) contains a similar provision. Under Section 39.05(7), the delinquency petition was untimely.
The state contends the petition was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the dismissal of the defective indictment. The state further asserts that the juvenile court was divested of jurisdiction from the time the indictment was returned until it was dismissed. We disagree.
Jurisdiction of the juvenile court attaches when the child is taken into custody or when the summons is served, whichever first occurs. Section 39.06(7), Florida Statutes (1977). Jurisdiction may be divested following a waiver hearing as provided by Section 39.02(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). No waiver hearing was held herein. Or, jurisdiction may be divested when an indictment is returned against a child as set forth in Section 39.02(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). That section provides:
(c) A child of any age charged with a violation of Florida law punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the court as set out in s. 39.06(7) unless and until an indictment on such charge is returned by the grand jury, in which event and at which time the court shall be divested of jurisdiction under this statute and the charge shall be made and the child shall be handled in every respect as if he were an adult. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
Jurisdiction herein was not divested by virtue of the indictment. As previously noted, the indictment alleged that S.E.B. committed robbery with a weapon. This offense is not punishable by life imprisonment, but rather is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of thirty years. Sections 812.13(2)(b) and 775.082(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). Since the juvenile court was not divested of jurisdiction, the delinquency petition was required to be filed within thirty days from December 27, 1977. Even if the thirty day period could be considered to have been tolled by virtue of the defective indictment, the delinquency petition was still untimely. There was no reason for the thirty day period to start anew after the dismissal of the defective indictment.
The adjudication of delinquency is reversed with directions that S.E.B.’s motion to dismiss the delinquency petition as untimely be granted.
BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.C.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1984)…. 2d 980 (Fla.1982). Finally, petitioner asserts that only a valid and proper juvenile delinquency petition will supply the required filing and stop the running of the time period provided in section 39.05(6). He relies on In the Interest of S.E.B., 365 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), where the filing of an indictment was held not to toll the running of the time period because there were not grounds, under the juvenile justice statute, for proceeding against the accused juvenile by indictment; and the decisio…
-
G.A. v. State, 391 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…la.Stat., (1978 Supp.) Instead, the state attorney immediately sought a grand jury indictment for murder in the first degree which, he has the authority to do, but which does not toll the time for filing the petition for delinquency. In re S. E. B., 365 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Under Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.110(e) (1977) a juvenile is entitled to release if the petition for delinquency is not filed within thirty 3 days of the date the JCR is referred to [*724] the intake officer. The Supreme Court has ruled th…
-
In the Interest of I. H. v. State, 405 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…tition, but we further state that if, as would be the better practice, a petition for delinquency were substituted for the information, the changes in form would not affect the timeliness of the first accusatory pleading. In the Interest of S.E.B., 365 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), is similarly distinguishable because of the finding that the first accusatory pleading was fatally defective. The facts there were that a juvenile was taken into custody, a complaint was filed, and then the state indicted the ju…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence