Y.S., 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.
Juvenile's delinquency adjudication reversed because prosecution's nolle prosequi was entered more than forty-five days after custody, precluding refiling under Florida's speedy trial statute.
Once a nolle prosequi is entered more than forty-five days after a juvenile is taken into custody, the prosecution cannot rescind it and proceed to trial because section 39.048(6) precludes refiling.
[1] A prosecution's nolle prosequi entered more than forty-five days after a juvenile is taken into custody cannot be rescinded, as section 39.048(6) precludes refiling of th…
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 intelligence“entry of nolle prosequi amounts to a nullification of the information and renders nugatory all subsequent proceedings under the same information”
Court cited State v. Vazquez for the principle that nolle prosequi nullifies the information and all subsequent proceedings
Y.S. was charged with misdemeanor battery. At the adjudicatory hearing on June 25, 1992, more than forty-five days after being taken into custody on A…
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 Misdemeanor Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Y.S. appeals from an order of delinquency. For the following reason, we reverse.
Y.S. was charged with misdemeanor battery under section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1991). Y.S. appeared for a sounding before the trial court on April 21, 1992. During the adjudicatory hearing on June 25, the prosecution announced that it would nolle prosequi as the victim had failed to appear. Shortly thereafter, the victim appeared and the trial judge allowed the prosecution to rescind its nolle prosequi. Y.S. entered a plea of no contest and reserved the right to appeal the granting of the motion to rescind the nolle prosequi. Because the nolle prosequi was announced more than forty-five days after the child was taken into custody, section 39.048(6), Florida Statutes (1991), precluded the refiling of the delinquency petition.. See State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1984) (entry of nolle prosequi amounts to a nullification of the information and renders nugatory all subsequent proceedings under the same information); State v. S.M.F., 546 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (dismissal of charges was error because prosecution could have entered a nollo prosequi to the charges and re-filed later; however, the prosecution had to comply with the speedy trial requirements).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.B. Spence, 658 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ity of orders entered in a previous case that is no longer in existence. Upon the state’s announcement of a nol pros of the information, which was self-executing, the case was effectively nullified and the proceeding terminated. See Y.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Consequently, the attempt to have this court review the two April 25, 1995 rulings on certiorari here, is the request for a futile act. Our announcement can have no practical effect or alter the outcome of those earlier dete…
-
E. M. v. State, 251 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…amaged. However, as the State conceded below and on appeal, there was no evidence that E.M. was one of the girls who danced on the car or damaged it in any way. - 3 - effectively nullified and the proceeding terminated." (citing Y.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993))). As to the burglary count, we agree with E.M. that the State failed to present any evidence that E.M. held an intent to commit a crime when she entered the house. See § 810.02(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017) (defining "burgla…
-
R.G. v. State, 647 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…la.1977); see also D.C.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1984). Therefore, dismissal of the delinquency petition was mandatory in this case if the petition was filed after the expiration of the statutory period. 346 So. 2d at 1019. In Y.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District held that section 39.048(6), Florida Statutes (1991), precluded the refiling of a delinquency petition where the charge had been nolle prossed more than forty-five days after the child was taken into custody. A…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. S.M.F., 546 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)