GREGORY DEAN BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the amended petition was properly filed and that applying the Youthful Offender Act would be an impermissible retroactive application.
[1] An amended petition may be filed beyond the statutory time limit if the original petition was timely filed and the amendment cures a deficiency without prejudicing the de…
[2] A petition is not so vague, indistinct, or indefinite as to require dismissal if it substantially alleges the charge and recites the correct statutory citation.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced. He appealed, arguing the amended petition was filed late and he should have been classified a…
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 Youthful Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1123] PER CURIAM.
Bradley appeals his judgment of conviction for sexual battery and sentence of fifteen years, alleging that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss with prejudice an amended petition because it was not filed within thirty days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office as required by section 39.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977) and, secondly, in failing to classify appellant as a youthful offender under the guidelines of section 958.04(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978). We affirm both points.
Before the case was transferred for adult prosecution, an original, timely petition was filed which did not allege an element of the charge. Pursuant to an amended petition filed beyond the thirty-day period, the state cured the deficiency. We conclude that the petition was properly amended under Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.110(c). The petition was not “so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the child, his parents), or custodian(s) and prejudice him (them) in the preparation of his (their) defense” so as to require dismissal under Rule 8.110(d). Rather, the petition was substantially complete and recited the correct statutory citation. Further, the amendment was made long before any hearing on the merits of the petition. See In the Interest of E.M., 362 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Compare T.R. v. State, 364 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
As to the second point, sentencing Bradley under the Youthful Offender Act would be an impermissible retroactive application of the Act. Art. X, § 9, Fla. Const.; State v. Pizarro, rev’d on rehearing, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Allen v. State, 383 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also, Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), aff’d, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976); Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601, 109 So. 588 (1926); Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), appeal dismissed, 129 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 964, 81 S.Ct. 1924, 6 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1961).
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)…hich became effective before sentencing. The district court cited article X, section 9, and held that the trial court was precluded from imposing its original sentence under an act that did not exist when the crime occurred. Accord Bradley v. State, 385 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). See also Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (invalidated original sentence imposed under a [*999] statute that was not in effect when the offense was committed).…
-
M.F. v. State, 583 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1991)…holly different victim. That analysis does not defeat the intent of the legislature in section 39.-05(6). Therefore, we approve L.G.R. on that basis. Cf. Rubin, 390 So. 2d at 322. Another decision in this group worth discussing is Bradley v. State, 385 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). There, the state failed to allege an essential element in its timely-filed delinquency petition, but the trial court allowed the state to cure the error by amendment after the statutory fili…
-
Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…es are concerned that have been already committed prior to the taking effect of such repealing or amending law. Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57, 58 (1900). See Plummer v. State, 83 Fla. 689, 92 So. 222, 223 (1922) (dicta); Bradley v. State, 385 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762, 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (“In fact, retroactive application of an amended or repealed statute affecting prosecution or punishment is unconstitutional. Article X, Section 9, Florida Constitu…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Abe Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. Eldridge Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Allen v. State, 383 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- T. R. v. State, 364 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- In the Interest of E.M., 362 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Sing v. Florida, 366 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1961)
- Fifth Ave. Coach Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 366 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1961)