IN THE INTEREST OF R. J. B., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile court order waiving jurisdiction and certifying a minor for trial as an adult is not a final appealable order under Florida law. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that such waiver orders are interlocutory and do not fall within the enumerated categories of appealable orders in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The order is not a final appealable order and the appeal is dismissed. A waiver order is interlocutory, contemplating further prosecution, and does not fall within the enumerated categories of appealable orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b).
[1] An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying a child for trial as an adult is not a final appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1).
[2] A statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is ineffective unless the Florida Supreme Court grants review.
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“Rule 9.140(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, governs appeals by a defendant in a criminal case. Under subsection (1), a defendant may appeal the following: (A) a final judgment adjudicating guilt; (B) an order granting probation, whether or not guilt has been adjudicated; (C) orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying probation; (D) an illegal sentence; and (E) a sentence when required or permitted by general law.”
Establishes the exclusive categories of appealable orders in criminal cases, excluding waiver orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.J.B., a child, was the subject of a juvenile court order in Osceola County that waived juvenile jurisdiction and certified him for trial as an adult…
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 Waiver Of Juvenile Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant R. J. B., a child, has filed a notice of appeal from an order of the Juve nile Court of Osceola County waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying him for trial as an adult.
The question presented by this motion is whether the order is a final order from which an appeal will lie.
We hold that it is not and dismiss.
Rule 9.140(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, governs appeals by a defendant in a criminal case. Under subsection (1), a defendant may appeal the following:
(A) a final judgment adjudicating guilt;
(B) an order granting probation, whether or not guilt has been adjudicated;
(C) orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying probation;
(D) an illegal sentence; and
(E) a sentence when required or permitted by general law.
The Committee Notes on the Rule specifically state that these are the only matters which may be appealed and that subsection (b)(1) is intended to supersede all other rules of practice and procedure. The order from which the instant appeal is taken is not within those enumerated above.
Appellant relies on Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as establishing the order as a final appealable order. In Rice, however, the court merely held that the failure of the juvenile court to follow mandatory provisions of the rules of juvenile procedure in certifying defendant’s case for trial as an adult rendered the criminal division of the circuit court without jurisdiction to enter a judgment and sentence against defendant. Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), refutes appellant’s position for there the court stated that an order transferring prosecution from the juvenile division contemplates further prosecution and is interlocutory.
Appellant further contends that two statutes are applicable and specifically provide authority for this appeal. Section 39.-09(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction, “shall be reviewable on appeal pursuant to section 39.14 and the Florida Appellate Rules.” Section 39.14(1), states:
[A] child . . . affected by an order of the court may appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules.
While numerous appeals have been permitted by district courts of appeal from waiver orders,1 none of these courts expressly based their jurisdiction upon these statutes or discussed the basis of their jurisdiction to hear the appeal. None were decided under the 1977 appellate rules.
If we accept the court’s determination in Mitchell that a waiver order is interlocutory, these statutes are ineffective to provide appellate review on their own since the Florida Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review. State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla.1972). In Smith, the Florida Supreme Court, adopting the First District Court of Appeal’s opinion, held that a statute authorizing interlocutory appellate review was unconstitutional and therefore ineffective unless the supreme court “breathes life” into it. The court stated that any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and nothing more.
This court may consider the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c). However, such review would not be proper since appellant fails to show an essential departure from the law and irreparable harm or that an appeal of a final order will not give complete and adequate relief. In Re Adoption of Stinebaker, 382 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See O. A. H. v. State, 332 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); R. W. v. State, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); D. A. B. v. State, 329 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)…ALDERMAN, Justice. We have for review the decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, in In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); D. A. D. v. State, 389 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); and In the Interest of D. J. P. v. State, 388 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), holding that it was without jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals from the juvenile c…
-
State v. M.G., 550 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971), ... [the] court, held that no right to jury trial existed for a juvenile.”). But cf. R.J.B., 408 So. 2d at 1048 (supreme court approved fifth district opinion, R.J.B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and held that where supreme court has not adopted a rule authorizing interlocutory review, review not available). Thus, the state has no [*1124] right to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in a juvenile proceeding. A…
-
State v. The Honorable Virgil B. Conkling, 421 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…t has dismissed appeals from juvenile waiver orders, holding that these are not final orders and, further, that the supreme court has not empowered district courts of appeal to consider these to be appealable non-final orders. E.g., R.J.B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); accord, Townsend v. State, 398 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The supreme court specifically approved these holdings, R.J.B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982), declaring that the supreme court had the sole authority to decid…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1972)
- In the Interest of John Joseph Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- R. W. and L. P. v. State, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fla. Petroleum Marketers Ass'n, Inc. v. The Honorable Charles D. McCLURE, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- O. A. H. v. State, 332 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- In re the Adoption of Kathryn Ann Stinebaker, 382 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- D. A. B. v. State, 329 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)