ROBERT FITZPATRICK, 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.
The court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try a minor under 16 for unarmed robbery and aggravated assault, requiring reversal.
Appellant, a 15-year-old, was indicted for unarmed robbery and aggravated assault and tried in adult court. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over t…
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 Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to King v. State, 425 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Appellant, aged 15 at the time of the alleged crime, was indicted for unarmed robbery and aggravated assault and tried in adult court. Since the court lacked jurisdiction to try appellant the cause must be reversed. King v. State, supra. If we were to reach the merits reversal would be also required for failure to grant appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the maximum and minimum penalties for the offenses charged (Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1981)); however, reversal would not be required for insufficiency of evidence.
Accordingly, the orders of delinquency and of commitment to the Department of Youth Services are reversed and the cause is remanded to trial court for further proceedings.
Since this court in King v. State certified to the Supreme Court a question of great public importance (and the Court has apparently accepted jurisdiction of the cause in its Case No. 60,857), we deem it appropriate to certify to the Court the following question of great public importance, which is related to the one posed in King:
DOES AN INDICTMENT FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVE THE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION TO TRY A MINOR WHO IS BELOW THE AGE OF 16 YEARS?
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur. Decision quashed, Fla., 430 So. 2d 444.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laurence N. Belair & Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City OF Treasure Island, 611 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…e than three dwelling units. The City’s own witnesses testified that Land’s End is a multiple family dwelling under the Code. “A statute or ordinance must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” Ocean's Edge Development Corp. v. Town of Juno Beach, 430 So. 2d 472, 475 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 436 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1983) (quoting Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So. 2d 552, 553 (FIa.1973)). The trial court erred in holding that the condominium units were separate single family dwellings.…
-
The Town OF Longboat KEY v. Islandside Prop. Owners Coal., LLC, 95 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…dhere to town development plans and zoning codes); City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677, 10 So. 2d 307, 309 (1942) (discussing the limited scope of authority under which municipal ordinances are valid); Ocean’s Edge Dev. Corp. v. Town of Juno Beach, 430 So. 2d 472, 474-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (determining that courts cannot amend local ordinances “as the town would have liked it to read” by ignoring the language of the code “in favor of after-the-fact expert testimony as to legislative intent to fill in the cr…
-
Nash v. Fort Lauderdale Bd. OF Adjustment & City of Fort Lauderdale, 462 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…t. Additionally, section 47-6.7 states specifically that no “building” shall be erected in the setback areas. Property owners are entitled to rely upon the clear language of municipal ordinances. Ocean’s Edge Development Corp. v. Town of Juno Beach, 430 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), pet. for rev. den., 436 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1983). Nash’s tiki hut, as the trial court found, is not a fully enclosed structure, and therefore is not a “building” under the pertinent code provisions. Consequently, it [*90] can…
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
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Fitzpatrick, 430 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1983)
- King v. State, 425 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)