M.R.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 appellant challenges a trial court's order withholding adjudication of delinquency and imposing community control as a sanction. The court affirms, holding that the appellant's misrepresentation in the predispositional report violated the foundational condition of a prior agreement not to file a delinquency petition.
The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the record supports the State's argument that the appellant's misrepresentation abrogated the initial agreement and that the appellant failed to meet the foundational condition of the bargain by fraudulently misrepresenting that he was new to the area and had recently met his codefendant.
[1] A juvenile defendant has a right to appeal a dispositional order, even if adjudication of delinquency is withheld.
[2] Juvenile delinquency matters are separate proceedings controlled by chapter 39, Florida Statutes, not chapter 924.
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“juvenile delinquency matters, though criminal in nature, are separate proceedings and controlled by chapter 39, Florida Statutes”
Establishes that juvenile delinquency cases are governed by distinct statutory provisions separate from criminal appellate rules, which is jurisdictionally significant for determining the proper appeal mechanism.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant agreed to the Juvenile Alternative Services Project as an alternative to the State filing a petition of delinquency, based on representa…
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 Fraudulent Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order withholding an adjudication of delinquency and placing him on community control under the supervision of the Juvenile Alternative Services Project until he is able to complete ten more hours of community work service. We affirm.
Appellee initially argues that appellate review of the trial court’s disposition is precluded since adjudication of delinquency was withheld. Appellee relies on D.S.K. v. State, 396 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) for its proposition that an appeal brought by a child pursuant to section 39.14(1), Florida Statutes (1983),1 shall be taken in the time and manner prescribed by the appellate rules pertaining to adult criminal appeals.2 We disagree. In State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1985), the supreme court held that juvenile delinquency matters, though criminal in nature, are separate proceedings and controlled by chapter 39, Florida Statutes. In reaching its conclusion that the State does not have a right to appeal in juvenile cases, the supreme court reasoned that section 39.14, and not chapter 924, after which rule 9.140(b)(1) was fashioned, affords a juvenile defendant a right to appeal. Consequently, in light of C. C., appellee’s argument herein lacks merit. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked not by rule 9.140(b) but by rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Cf. Perritte v. State, 367 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1st DCA 1979).
Turning, now, to the merits of the appeal, we hold that the record supports appellee’s argument that its initial agreement not to file a petition of delinquency was abrogated by . appellant’s misrepresentation in the predispositional report. It was that misrepresentation which led to the initial recommendation that he be placed in the Juvenile Alternative Services Project as an alternative to appellee’s filing a petition of delinquency. By that fraudulent representation, we hold that appellant failed to meet the condition foundational to the very bargain, i.e., that appellant was new to the area and had only recently met his codefendant. Cf. Flewellyn v. State, 308 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur. . Section 39.14(1) provides:
Any child, and any parent or legal custodian of any child, affected by an order of the court may appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules.
. Rule 9.140 provides:
(b) Appeals by Defendant.
(1) Appeats Permitted. A defendant may appeal:
(A) A final judgment adjudicating guilt;
(B) An order granting probation, whether or not guilt has been adjudicated;
(C) Orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying probation;
(D) An illegal sentence; and
(E) A sentence when required or permitted by general law.
A defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty; nor may a defendant appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of nolo contendere without an express reservation of the right of appeal from a prior order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.M.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…utes (at present, section 39.069), and that chapter 924 does not apply to juvenile proceedings. E.g., State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1985); G.C. v. State, 560 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. Bd DCA 1990), approved, 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1991); M.R.S. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We find nothing in the 1996 amendments to chapter 924 (ch. 96-248, at 953, Laws of Fla.) to suggest a contrary intent on the part of the legislature. Accordingly, we reject the state’s argument in this regard. Section 39.052(4)…
-
In the Interest of C.L.S. v. State, 586 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…from the order of disposition, if, in fact, the appeal proceeds pursuant to Rule 9.110. In the present case, it was Circuit Judge Green, sitting in Polk County, who administered the disposition hearing and concluded the case. ' In M.R.S. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), we considered and rejected the state’s argument that an appeal taken by a child subsequent to a delinquency proceeding should be pursued in the manner prescribed by the appellate rules pertaining to adult criminal appeals, or in…
-
In re the Interest of T.G., 658 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b), citing Martin v. State, 600 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The state’s reliance on Martin is misplaced because the defendant in Martin was not a juvenile. As the first district explained in M.R.S. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), in which a juvenile was appealing an order withholding adjudication, the juvenile’s right to appeal arises under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, and this court’s appellate jurisdiction is thus invoked by Florida Rule of Appellate…
Authorities Cited
- State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1985)
- In the Interest of D. S. K. v. State, 396 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Perritte v. State, 367 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Flewellyn v. State, 308 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)