STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
W. A. M., A CHILD, 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 State appeals a juvenile court's discharge order based on violation of the juvenile speedy trial rule. The court holds that the State has a constitutional right to appeal final judgments in juvenile cases and that the juvenile waived speedy trial rights by requesting a continuance, making the discharge erroneous.
The State possesses a constitutional right to appeal final judgments in juvenile cases. The juvenile waived his speedy trial rights under the juvenile rule by moving for and obtaining a continuance, analogous to waiver under the criminal procedure rule. Therefore, discharging the juvenile was error.
[1] A state has a constitutional right to appeal from final judgments in juvenile cases.
[2] An order discharging a defendant on speedy trial grounds is a final order.
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“The right to appeal from the final decisions of trial courts to the Supreme Court and to the District Courts of Appeal has become a part of the Constitution and is no longer dependent on statutory authority or subject to be impaired or abridged by statutory law.”
Establishes that the constitutional right to appeal final judgments exists independent of statutory authorization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was not brought to an adjudicatory hearing within the time required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(a). However, before the tim…
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 Juvenile Speedy Trial Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This is an appeal by the State of Florida from an order of the juvenile court discharging the appellee from further prosecution as a juvenile under the authority of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180, the juvenile “speedy trial” rule.
There is a question as to whether the State may take this appeal because no statute or rule authorizes it.
Article V, § 4(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1972), provides in part:
District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court, (emphasis supplied)
The emphasized language would appear at first to be a mere parenthetical phrase describing the appeals which district courts have jurisdiction to hear, implying that the grant of rights to take appeals would be found in statutory law. However, the constitutional provision formerly relating to the jurisdiction of district courts of appeal, Article V, § 5(3), Florida Constitution (1956), provided in part as follows:
Appeals from trial courts in each appellate district, ... may be taken to the court of appeal of such district, as a matter of right, from all final judgments or decrees except those from which appeals may be taken direct to the supreme court or to a circuit court, (emphasis supplied)
This earlier provision clearly described the jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal as a corollary of a grant of the right to appeal final judgments. The Supreme Court of Florida held in Crownover v. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1964) that this provision of the constitution describing the jurisdiction of the district court granted a right of appeal as a matter of course. In Crownover it was said that:
The right to appeal from the final decisions of trial courts to the Supreme Court and to the District Courts of Appeal has become a part of the Constitution and is no longer dependent on statutory authority or subject to be impaired or abridged by statutory law. .. .
Notwithstanding the substantial difference in language between the former constitutional provision considered in Crownover and the present provision relating to the jurisdiction of district courts of appeal, we do not believe such changes were intended to eliminate the right of appeal from final judgments. Therefore, we hold that the State does have a constitutional right of appeal from final judgments 1 in juvenile cases.
An order discharging a defendant on speedy trial grounds is a final order. State v. Wise, 336 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); State v. Johnson, 287 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Mims, 267 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
In this case, the juvenile was not brought to an adjudicatory hearing within the time provided by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180(a). However, within the time provisions of that rule, the juvenile sought and obtained a continuance and the State argues that by such actions the juvenile waived his speedy trial (adjudicatory hearing) rule rights, by analogy to the similar and familiar opinions holding that a defendant waives his right under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 by moving for and obtaining a continuance. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980); State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, 253 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1971); State v. Bufford, 383 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We agree and hold that discharging appellee was error because he had waived his rule rights by moving for a continuance of his adjudicatory hearing and because he has demonstrated no violation of his constitutional speedy trial rights.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . As to interlocutory appeals in juvenile cases, see In re R. J. B., D. J. P. and D. A. D., 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…, 344 So. 2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Justice Grimes, then a district court judge, declared for an unanimous panel: “Our Florida Constitution guarantees convicted persons of the right of appeal See also Judge Cowart’s opinion in State v. W.A.M., 412 So. 2d 49 (5th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982) (finding that although article V was revised in 1972, the right to appeal was not affected). . See Crownover v. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1964), holding: "Before the enactment of chapter…
-
State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1985)…rict court consolidated four appeals brought by the state from adverse judgments or orders of juvenile courts and, on motions of the several juveniles, dismissed the state’s appeals. The order of dismissal acknowledged conflict with State v. W.A.M., 412 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982). Moreover, on petition for rehearing en bane, the district court, sitting en banc, reconsidered the case, adhered to the panel decision, and certified that its decision passed upon a question…1 / 2
-
State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)…Creighton, 438 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The decision of which review is sought is an order dismissing an appeal brought by the state in a criminal case. The district court certified that its decision directly conflicts with State v. W.A.M., 412 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Respondent was charged in a two-count information with first-degree arson in viola [*736] tion of section 806.01(l)(a), Florida Statutes…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Isaac Don Butler & Gerald Nickles v. Honorable Ralph O. Cullen, 253 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1971)
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)
- Crownover v. The Honorable George T. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Bufford, 383 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Wise, 336 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Anderson v. State, 287 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- State v. Zebedee Johnson, Jr., 287 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State v. Mims, 267 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)