M.F., 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.
M.F., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss an amended petition that changed the controlled substance charge from cannabis to cocaine sixty-nine days after custody. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that amendments in juvenile proceedings are freely permitted under Rule 8.110(c), and the timely initial petition tolled the statutory filing period.
The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because Rule 8.110(c) permits amendments freely in the interest of justice and welfare of the child, the timely initial petition adequately informed M.F. of the delinquency charge, and the granted continuance eliminated any prejudice to his defense preparation.
[1] Amendments to juvenile delinquency petitions shall be freely permitted in the interest of justice and the welfare of the child, and a continuance may be granted if the am…
[2] A trial court's granting of a continuance after a petition amendment moots a claim of prejudice in the preparation of a defense.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Amendments shall be freely permitted in the interest of justice and the welfare of the child.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for amendments in juvenile delinquency proceedings under Rule 8.110(c)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state orally moved to amend the petition to change the type of controlled substance from cannabis to cocaine. Defense counsel objected, and the st…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The respondent, M.F., appeals an adjudication of delinquency. We affirm.
The respondent contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the amended petition for delinquency where the amended petition actually alleged an entirely new charge and where the state orally amended the petition sixty-nine days after he was taken into custody in violation of section 39.05(6), Florida Statutes (1989).1 We disagree. This case is controlled by Rule 8.110(c), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure (1989), which provides:
At any time prior to the adjudicatory hearing an amended petition may be filed or the petition may be amended on motion. Amendments shall be freely permitted in the interest of justice and the welfare of the child. A continuance may be granted upon motion and a showing that the amendment prejudices or materially affects any party.
Rule 8.110(c), Fla.R.Juv.P. (1989).
In the present case, the state made an oral motion to amend the petition to change the type of controlled substance that the respondent was charged with selling, delivering or possessing with intent to sell or deliver from cannabis to cocaine. Defense counsel objected and the state agreed to a continuance. The cause was rescheduled and respondent was given over a month to prepare for the hearing. The trial court’s granting of the continuance mooted respondent’s claim that he was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. We are aware of the fact that the sale of cannabis is a third-degree felony, while the sale of cocaine is a second-degree felony. However, unlike criminal law, the respondent in a juvenile proceeding is adjudicated delinquent and not convicted of a crime. In the Interest of E.M., 362 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Therefore, we find that the timely filing of the initial petition which adequately informed the respondent that he was being charged with the sale or delivery of a controlled substance operated to toll the statutory filing period. See L.G.R. v. State, 485 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended petition and affirm the adjudication of delinquency.
Affirmed.
. Section 39.05(6), Florida Statutes (1989) states:
On motions by or in behalf of a child, a petition alleging delinquency shall be dismissed with prejudice if it was not filed within 45 days from the date the child was taken into custody. The court may grant an extension of time, not to exceed an additional 15 days, upon such motion by the state attorney for good cause shown.
§ 39.05(6), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.F. v. State, 583 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1991)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review M.F. v. State, 563 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1990), based on asserted express and direct conflict with D.C.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1984); S.R. v. State, 346 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1977); J.H. v. State, 424 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and T.R. v. State, 364 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1…
-
In the Interest of B.T. v. State, 573 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Cases from other courts have come to a contrary conclusion. State v. D.J., 474 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); L.G.R. v. State, 485 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. M.M., 557 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); M.F. v. State, 563 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). . At the adjudicatory hearing, the state attempted to file the second amendment to the delinquency petition to reconcile the body of the petition with the caption charging appellant with a sexual battery of a mentally defective…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of E.M., 362 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- L.G.R. v. State, 485 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)