THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
I.A., A JUVENILE, 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.
Dismissal is not an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation absent irreparable prejudice to the defendant.
The state appealed an order dismissing a petition for delinquency. The trial court dismissed the petition due to a discovery violation by the state.…
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 Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order of the juvenile division of the circuit court dismissing a petition for delinquency pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. Appellee’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the state’s appeal of such an order is unfounded. Chapter 39 delineates proceedings relating to juveniles. Section 39.14(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1987), specifically authorizes the instant appeal. The statute provides:
39.14 Appeal.—
(1) An appeal from an order of the court affecting a party to the case may be taken to the appropriate district court of appeal within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules by:
**
(b) The state, which may appeal from:
1. An order dismissing a petition or any section thereof....
§ 39.14(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Having resolved the question of jurisdiction, we address the merits of the appeal and reverse. Dismissal is not an appropriate sanction for the state’s discovery violation in the absence of irreparable prejudice to the defendant. State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. DelGaudio, 445 So. 2d 605, 612 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984). See also Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.070(i)(1). The record in this case reveals that the state was not remiss in fulfilling its discovery obligations. Moreover, the trial court never made a determination regarding any consequential prejudice from these alleged derelictions as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). Where the claimed omissions are insufficient to warrant the ultimate sanction of dismissal, they may not serve as the predicate for dismissal under the aegis of the speedy trial rule. Brown. Accordingly, the order of discharge is reversed, and the cause is remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Honorable Arthur Birken v. Scheer, 543 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…27 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1988); Lobik v. State, 506 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Wassel, 502 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Bonamy, 409 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). See also State v. I.A., 527 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Borges, 467 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985); State v. Fraser, 426 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1983). The defense relies on dicta in State v. Del Gaudio…
-
State v. E.N., 624 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…proceeding against E.N., a juvenile, withholding adjudication for violation of section 810.08(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). We have jurisdiction.1 § 39.069(1)(b)1, Fla.Stat. (1991); State v. E.T., 560 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. I.A., 527 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The state charged E.N. with trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, a first degree misdemeanor. § 810.09, Fla.Stat. (1991). Over state objection, the trial court permitted E.N. to plead to trespass in a struc…
-
State v. P.F. and J.S., 627 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…J.S. We reverse. The record provides no basis for the trial court’s ruling. Dismissal is not an appropriate sanction when, as here, the record does not reveal any instance where the state failed to fulfill its discovery obligations. State v. I.A., 527 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Additionally, the trial court made no findings that respondents were prejudiced as a result of any alleged discovery violations. I.A. Finally, the discharge was not appropriate on speedy trial grounds because the court had proper…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)