M.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 adjudication of delinquency based on a nolo contendere plea must be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a Boykin colloquy to ensure the plea was voluntary.
A juvenile appealed adjudications of delinquency for grand theft and burglary. After an adjudicatory hearing for the first charge, the juvenile entere…
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 Boykin V. Alabama cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juvenile M.C. appeals adjudications of delinquency entered upon two separate petitions charging grand theft and burglary of dwellings belonging to different individuals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
An adjudicatory hearing was held on Circuit Court case number 88-3584, following which the judge indicated his intention to adjudicate the juvenile delinquent. Defense counsel then tendered a plea of nolo contendere to the second case, circuit court case number 88-3585, reserving the right to appeal both cases. No plea colloquy was conducted as to this plea. The court then adjudicated the juvenile delinquent as to both cases.
We affirm the adjudication entered in Circuit Court case no. 88-3584 in all respects. However, the State has confessed error regarding the adjudication of delinquency entered in Circuit Court case number 88-3585, based upon the court’s failure to determine that the juvenile freely, knowingly, and voluntarily tendered the plea of nolo contendere as is required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
Accordingly, we reverse that second adjudication and remand the matter so that, by plea colloquy, the court may determine whether the juvenile freely, knowingly, and voluntarily tendered his nolo contendere plea. C.W. v. State, 554 So. 2d 28, (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); C.S. v. State, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.130(a)(1). See also J.N. v. State, 483 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (proceedings tantamount to nolo contendere plea required inquiry into whether juvenile freely, knowingly, and intelligently waived his attendant constitutional rights); A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (same).
Upon a finding of voluntariness, the court may then proceed to adjudicate the juvenile delinquent. Upon a contrary finding, an adjudicatory hearing would have to be held.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.W. v. State, 590 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. We find that the trial court failed to properly take a plea in adjudicating the appellant a delinquent. M. C. v. State, 561 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); J.W. v. State, 559 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); J.N. v. State, 483 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Rule 8.130(a)(1), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure; We…
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Soliz v. State, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- J.N. v. State, 483 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Simmons v. State, 554 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- C.W. v. State, 554 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)