A. D. H., 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.
Juvenile's adjudication for obstructing without violence was reversed because the charge was not a lesser-included offense of the grand theft alleged in the petition, depriving him of adequate notice to prepare a defense.
A juvenile cannot be adjudicated delinquent for obstructing without violence when grand theft is the sole allegation, as obstructing without violence is not a lesser-included offense of grand theft and the juvenile lacked adequate notice.
[1] Obstructing without violence is not a lesser-included offense of grand theft in the second degree, and a juvenile cannot be adjudicated delinquent for such offense when g…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a juvenile is not subject to adjudication proceedings absent written notice permitting an adequate time period in which to prepare a defense”
Court's statement of the due process requirement applicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings
A juvenile was charged by petition with grand theft in the second degree. At the adjudicatory hearing, he was acquitted of the theft charge but found …
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 Second Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Chief Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was charged by petition. The sole allegation was grand theft in the second degree. § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1981). The appellant was acquitted of the theft charge at his adjudicatory hearing; however, he was found guilty of obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense. § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1981). We reverse.
Although the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded an “adult” in a criminal trial is not conversely applicable in delinquency cases, State v. D. H., 340 So. 2d 1163 (Fla.1976), a juvenile is not. subject to adjudication proceedings absent written notice permitting an adequate time period in which to prepare a defense. In Re: Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Furthermore, in fairly viewing lesser-included offenses, we cannot categorize obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense of grand theft. See In Re: Use of the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Nos. 57,731 and 58,799 (Fla., filed April 16, 1981). Therefore, since grand theft was the sole allegation presented here, the accused could not logically have anticipated, nor prepared for, a charge of obstructing without violence.
To subject the appellant here to delinquency proceedings which could perchance result in his loss of liberty without initially affording him his basic due process right of notice constitutes error, which, in the interest of justice, warrants remedy.
Accordingly, the order adjudicating this appellant delinquent is REVERSED.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. D. H., 340 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976)