IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., A CHILD
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.
An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying a child for trial as an adult is not an interlocutory appealable order and does not qualify for common-law certiorari review absent an essential departure from law and irreparable harm.
An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying a juvenile for trial as an adult is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal and is not a final order from which an appeal lies.
[1] An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying a juvenile for trial as an adult is not an interlocutory appealable order and does not constitute a final order from…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile appealed an order of involuntary waiver rendered by the trial court that certified the juvenile for trial as an adult.…
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 Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order of involuntary waiver rendered by the trial court. Although appellant would give this court jurisdiction pursuant to section 39.-069(l)(a), Florida Statutes, we conclude the order he appeals is a nonappealable order. An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying the juvenile for trial as an adult is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal. State v. G.A., 417 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1982). It is not a final order from which an appeal will lie. R.J.B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982). It does not come under any of the appeals permitted under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(l)(A)-(E). Although the order may be considered as a petition for common-law certiorari, such review is not proper in absence of a showing that there has been an essential departure from the law and irreparable harm or that a final order will not give complete and adequate relief. R.J.B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), approv’d, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982). Neither is involved here.
The issue presented in the instant case is one for consideration in the event of adjudication and sentencing. See Leonard v. State, 522 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Townsend v. State, 398 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…eal-able nonfinal order.” A.F. v. State, 541 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (emphasis in original). Further, “[a]ny error committed by the trial court may be raised only on appeal from the final judgment and sentence.” Id,.; In the Interest of D.W., 616 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Thus, given an appellate court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal of a transfer order, it makes little sense to have to reverse a transferred juvenile’s case in its entirety upon plenary review, after th…
-
State v. DEL REY, 643 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ida Statutes (1993), because an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying the juvenile for trial as an adult, as here, is not a final order from which such an appeal can be taken. See R.J.B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982); In re D.W., 616 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). II Second, we dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari, without passing on the merits thereof, because the state has failed to establish that the order sought to be reviewed “may cause material injury throughout subsequen…
-
B.J. v. State, 933 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…8 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982). We also decline appellant’s invitation to undertake certiorari review of the order based on our conclusion that any error the trial court may have committed can be adequately remedied on appeal. See In the Interest of D.W., 616 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). KAHN, C.J., WEBSTER, and HAWKES, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)
- In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Serafin Arcia and Lazaro Cordero v. State, 522 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Leonard v. State, 522 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Kilven Townsend v. State, 398 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. G. A., 417 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1982)