J.G.S., 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.
A juvenile delinquent appealed his commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for burglary. The court reversed because the trial court failed to properly advise the juvenile of his right to counsel or obtain a valid waiver thereof, violating federal law and Florida statutory requirements.
The trial court erred in accepting the plea and disposition without properly advising the juvenile of his right to counsel at both the arraignment and disposition hearings. The inadequate offer of counsel at the arraignment and complete failure to renew the offer at the disposition hearing constituted reversible error requiring reversal and remand.
[1] Juveniles are entitled to the assistance of counsel in delinquency proceedings.
[2] A court must advise a child of their right to court-appointed counsel when the child appears without an attorney.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“juveniles are entitled to assistance of counsel in delinquency proceedings”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for the right to counsel in juvenile cases under In re Gault
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.G.S., a juvenile, was charged with burglary. At the arraignment hearing, he appeared without counsel. When asked if he needed an attorney, he initia…
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 Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, appeals a delinquency order committing him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. We reverse and remand.
The basis for the petition alleging delinquency is that appellant committed burglary. At the arraignment hearing, appellant appeared without counsel. The court informed appellant of the burglary charge, which he admitted. The court then asked appellant if he felt he needed an attorney, to which appellant replied “No.” The court further added, “If you don’t understand all this, I’ll appoint a lawyer to help you. Do you feel that you would like an attorney?” to which appellant responded “Yes sir, I understand.”
At the disposition hearing, appellant again appeared without counsel. The court made no offer of counsel, nor advised appellant of his right to counsel.
The first point raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in accepting a plea and sentencing appellant who was not represented by counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has held that juveniles are entitled to assistance of counsel in delinquency proceedings. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).
The state legislature has provided that where a child appears without an attorney, he shall be advised of his rights to court-appointed counsel. Sec. 39.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). The Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure also impose a duty on the court to advise a child of his right to-counsel and appoint counsel if the child is insolvent. Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.290(c). Furthermore, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290(d)(5) states:
If a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the party appears without counsel.
To establish that a person has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, the state must prove “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242, 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 439 (1977).
Appellant was not properly advised of his right to counsel and did not waive his right to counsel at the arraignment hearing nor at the disposition hearing. The right-to-counsel colloquies at the arraignment and disposition hearings did not demonstrate that appellant knew what his rights were; therefore, he could not have voluntarily relinquished a known right. The inadequate offer of counsel constituted reversible error. R.V.P. v. State, 395 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The second point raised is without merit.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new arraignment and disposition hearings.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001)…the foregoing discussion, we note that fundamental error occurred in the present case because T.G. was denied his right to counsel.4 It is well settled that juveniles are entitled to assistance of counsel in delinquency proceedings. J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)). The statutory protection of this right is incorporated into Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165.5 In short, rule 8.165 provides that counsel is requ…
-
A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…he understood the consequences of waiving legal representation, and there is no showing that the waiver was knowing and intelligently made. This amounts to reversible error. See J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also A.D.; U.S. Const. Amend. VI .and XIV; Art. 1 § 9 and 19(a), Fla. Const.; §§ 985.23 and 985.203; L.R. v. State, 698 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); In the Interest of J.H., 580 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), approved, 59…
-
B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the party appears without counsel. We agree with the appellant that the trial judge’s failure to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing entitles the appellant to relief.2 J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Thus we need not address the question whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the original waiver of counsel was knowingly and voluntarily made. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the appellant’s motion for re…
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
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967)
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1977)
- In the Interest of R. v. P., 395 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)