STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
A.N.F., 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 appealed a juvenile court's dismissal of charges against a child offender based on lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that when a person who allegedly committed a crime during minority is not prosecuted in juvenile court before reaching age nineteen, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction and the case falls to the general circuit court.
The juvenile court does not retain jurisdiction over a person who allegedly committed a crime during minority but was not prosecuted in the juvenile system before reaching age nineteen. Such persons fall under the general jurisdiction of the circuit court and must be prosecuted as adults.
[1] The State has a right to appeal an order dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction in juvenile court.
[2] A juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a child until they reach 19 years of age, even if the offense was committed before they turned 18, unless jurisdiction is relin…
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“when the jurisdiction of any child who is alleged to have committed a delinquent act is obtained, the court shall retain jurisdiction, unless relinquished by its order, until the child reaches 19 years of age”
Establishes that juvenile jurisdiction is conditional on 'obtaining' jurisdiction and terminates at age nineteen
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.N.F. was arrested on January 21, 1980, at age seventeen on charges including burglary, driving without a valid license, and fleeing police. He faile…
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 Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The State appeals from an order entered by the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Marion County dismissing the petition filed against appellee, A.N.F., a child, because of lack of jurisdiction. Initially we were concerned whether or not the State has a right to appeal such an order, but we have concluded it does. State v. W.A.M., 412 So. 2d 49 No. 81-249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Reaching the merits of the case, we affirm.
The appellee was arrested on January 21, 1980, when he was seventeen years old. A petition charged him with burglary, driving without a valid driver’s license, fleeing and attempting to elude police officers, and leaving the scene of an auto accident involving property damage in violation of section 316.061, Florida Statutes (1979). Ap-pellee failed to appear at his arraignment. A custody order was issued, but it was never executed because the authorities were unable to locate him.
On May 10, 1981, after appellee had passed his nineteenth birthday, he was arrested on a different burglary charge and incarcerated. When the authorities discovered the prior outstanding custody order, they sought to prosecute the petition in the juvenile system. On May 28, 1981, the juvenile court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Subsections 39.02(1) and (2) give the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over proceedings in which a child or a person who was a child at the time an offense was committed, allegedly violated the law. Section 39.02(4) further provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 743.-07 when the jurisdiction of any child who is alleged to have committed a delinquent act is obtained, the court shall retain jurisdiction, unless relinquished by its order, until the child reaches 19 years of age, with the same power over the child that the court had prior to the child becoming an adult. This subsection shall not be construed to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction by any other court having jurisdiction of the child if the child, after becoming an adult, commits a violation of law. (Emphasis supplied). .
Other provisions of Chapter 39 indicate the Legislature intended the powers of the Juvenile Division would terminate when a person attained the age of nineteen.1
We conclude that a person who allegedly commits a crime during his minority (before age eighteen), and is not prosecuted in the Juvenile Division before he becomes nineteen years of age, should not be handled as a juvenile under Chapter 39. The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is specially carved out of the general jurisdiction of the circuit court, and it is by special legislative grace and favor, that individuals are given special treatment and consideration under that system.2 Persons over the age of nineteen, even though they committed an alleged crime while under the age of eigh teen, because not included under Chapter 39, fall back under the general jurisdiction of the circuit court, and are subject to prosecution therein.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. . See §§ 39.11(l)(a)2, 39.11(l)(c), 39.12(2), Fla. Stat. (1981).
. State v. G.D.M., 394 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.1981); State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Griffith, 675 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1996)…fore the court while they are juveniles. I read section 39.04 as intending to make chapter 39 inapplicable to a person who is prosecuted after reaching nineteen years of age. I agree with the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Sharp in State v. A.N.F., 413 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982): We conclude that a person who allegedly commits a crime during his minority (before age eighteen), and is not prosecuted in the Juvenile Division before he becomes nineteen years of age, should not be handled as a juvenile unde…
-
Griffith v. State, 654 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…egun while the child is still a child. Griffith was 22 years old when he was charged, and thus section 39.02(4) is irrelevant as to him. There are two Florida cases that appear to make a different construction of these statutes. In State v. A.N.F., 413 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), the defendant was arrested while 17-years old for crimes committed at that age. He failed to appear at his arraignment, however, and the police could not locate him to serve a custody order. After he had reached 19, he was arres…
-
D.M. v. State, 580 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…hat such jurisdiction ceases when the individual reaches majority. See In the Interest of B.P., a child, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); In the Interest of C.L.D., a child, 464 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State of Florida v. A.N.F., a child, 413 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Nunc pro tunc orders are issued to correct clerical mistakes or refer to judicial acts which memorialize a previously taken judicial act. Further, when applied to the entry of a legal order, the nunc pro tunc order generally re…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980)
- Floyd v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State v. W. A. M., 412 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State v. G. D. M., 394 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1981)