B.I., 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 16-year-old appellant was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft of an automobile and driving without a valid license after waiving his right to counsel. The Florida appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial judge failed to comply with juvenile procedure rules requiring renewal of the counsel offer at each subsequent stage of proceedings.
The court held that the trial judge's failure to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290(b)(4), which requires renewal of the counsel offer at each subsequent stage of proceedings where a party appears without counsel, entitles the appellant to relief. Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency must be vacated.
[1] A court must renew the offer of counsel at each subsequent stage of juvenile proceedings if a party initially waives counsel and appears without counsel at a later stage.
[2] Failure to renew the offer of counsel at each subsequent stage of juvenile proceedings, after an initial waiver, entitles a juvenile to relief from judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If a waiver [of counsel] 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.”
This quote from Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290(b)(4) establishes the mandatory requirement that counsel be re-offered at each stage of proceedings, which was violated by the trial judge.
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, age 16, was charged with grand theft of an automobile and driving without a valid driver's license in juvenile court. At arraignment, 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 Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
The appellant appeals an order denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.230.1 We reverse.
The appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was charged in juvenile court with grant theft of an automobile and driving without a valid driver’s license. At arraignment the trial judge explained to the appellant and the appellant’s father that the appellant had a right to counsel and that counsel would be provided for him if he could not afford private counsel. The appellant and his father then signed a written document waiving the appellant’s right to counsel.
Accordingly, the appellant was unrepresented by counsel at the adjudicatory hearing. Neither at the beginning of that hearing nor at any time during the hearing did the trial judge renew the offer of counsel to the appellant. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the trial judge found the appellant to be guilty of a delinquent act and committed him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for one year. Subsequently, the public defender filed a motion for relief from judgment on the appellant’s behalf, alleging that the appellant’s waiver of counsel was not free and voluntary, and that he was adjudicated guilty at a hearing at which he was not represented by counsel. After a hearing on the motion, the trial judge ruled that the appellant’s waiver of counsel was made freely and voluntarily. The motion was denied.
On this appeal, the appellant points out that the trial judge failed to comply with the provisions of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290(b)(4), which states:
If a waiver [of counsel] 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.
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 relief from judgment with directions that the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency be vacated and additional proceedings be taken.
Reversed with directions.
RYDER and FRANK, JJ., concur. . The appellant’s motion recites that it is filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.240. That obviously is an inadvertent error. . We note that the state has not questioned on this appeal whether the issues raised by the appellant constitute grounds for relief from judgment under rule 8.230.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.E.R. v. State, 588 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 39.071, Florida Statutes (1989), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290. See B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and PARKER, JJ., concur.…
-
J.M.B. v. State, 800 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…his court has reversed an adjudication of delinquency. G.E.F. v. State, 782 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Moreover, the trial judge failed to renew the offer of counsel at each stage of the proceedings, in violation of rule 8.165(a). B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also In Interest of J.C.S., 560 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The failure to comply [*319] with rule 8.165 is fundamental error. M.A.F. v. State, 742 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We recognize that the juvenile court judg…
-
M.M.K. v. State, 821 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…trial court should renew the offer of assistance of counsel at each subsequent stage of the proceedings. See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error); B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (concluding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing); In re J.C.S., 560 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that trial court erred in failing to advise child of his right to…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)