IN THE INTEREST OF S. R. P., 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.
The court held that a juvenile's interlocutory appeal challenging the state's dismissal of juvenile charges to refile as adult charges is not authorized, and the state has discretion in filing charges.
A juvenile sought to plead guilty to delinquency charges to avoid state dismissal and refiling as an adult. The trial court refused to accept the plea…
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 Interlocutory Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
The appellant, a juvenile, claims error by the trial court in refusing to accept her plea of guilty to delinquency charges and in allowing the state to voluntarily dismiss those charges so that the state could proceed against her by filing an information in the criminal court. Finding no authority for the filing of an interlocutory appeal under these circumstances, we have nevertheless determined that we will treat the notice as a petition for writ of certiorari.
After the state filed juvenile charges the prosecutor advised the trial court that he intended to file a nolle prosse of the juvenile charges and proceed against the appellant as an adult by filing an information in the criminal court. In an attempt to avoid the state’s action, the appellant asked the trial court to accept a guilty plea before the state could file a nolle prosse. The trial court refused. We find no error. The decision to file a nolle prosse is essentially vested solely in the discretion of the state. State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In addition, under the provisions of Section 39.04(2)(e)(4), Florida Statutes (1979), a state attorney is vested with discretionary authority to file an information and seek adult sanctions against a juvenile on charges that may also constitute the basis for a juvenile petition. The trial court here has done nothing more than recognize the discretionary authority of the state as outlined above. We do not believe the case of Reyes v. Kelly, 224 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1969), relied on by appellant, is to the contrary. That case held that a trial court may not arbitrarily refuse to accept a guilty plea. We find no such arbitrary refusal here.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brosky, 79 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…t may entertain a motion to dismiss. None of these grounds are present in this matter. Without a motion to dismiss the charges, the decision to nolle pros an information is vested solely in the discretion of the State. See In the Interest of S.R.P., 397 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). There was no motion to dismiss the pending charges. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for reinstatement of the charges against the defendant. Reversed and…
-
State v. Turner, 636 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ision to withhold consent to defendant’s entry into pretrial intervention program); State v. Brown, 416 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (court improperly dismissed information where state attorney-determined to prosecute); In the Interest of S.R.P., 397 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (decision to file nolle prosse vested solely in discretion of state); State v. Jogan, 388 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (state attorney has sole discretion to either prosecute or nolle prosse a defendant). On appeal, the defenda…
-
State v. R.J., 763 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…an opportunity to speak at that point, Judge. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I was just announcing a nol pros. It is axiomatic that the decision to file a nolle prosse is vested solely in the discretion of the state.1 See In the Interest of S.RP., 397 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (permission of the trial court is not necessary, because the decision to file a nolle prosse is within the sole discretion of the state). The state attorney may enter a nolle pro…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gonzalo R. Reyes v. Honorable Richard Kelly, 224 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Braden, 375 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)