THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE STEVE D. LEVINE, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND FRANCISCO DEL REY, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 1995-05-31
No. 95-1024
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
655 So. 2d 1258 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1995)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, granted the State's application to prevent a juvenile division judge from ruling on a motion to set aside a waiver order that had transferred a child for criminal prosecution. The court held that once a case is pending in the criminal division, only the judge presiding over the criminal proceeding may rule on issues related to that case.


Holding

No. Once a case is pending in the criminal division following a waiver order, only the judge presiding over the criminal proceeding itself may rule on issues presented in that case. The juvenile division judge lacked the authority to set the motion for hearing.


Headnotes

[1] A case transferred from juvenile to criminal division for prosecution is inappropriate for a juvenile division judge to rule upon issues presented in the criminal proceed…

[2] A judge presiding over a criminal proceeding has exclusive authority to rule on issues arising from that proceeding, even if the underlying matter originated in juvenile…

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

Key Quotes

“its pendency in the criminal division renders it inappropriate and improper for any judge but the individual presiding over the criminal proceeding itself to rule upon the issues presented”

Establishes the core holding that only the criminal division judge may rule on matters once the case transfers to criminal division

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In February 1994, a circuit judge in the juvenile division of Dade County circuit court entered a waiver order transferring a juvenile named Del Rey f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In February of 1994, a circuit judge sitting in the juvenile division of the Dade County circuit court entered a waiver order under section 39.052(2), Florida Statutes (1993), transferring a child, Del Rey, for criminal prosecution to the criminal division of the circuit court, where the action is now pending. See State v. Del Rey, 643 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The juvenile has now filed a motion, purportedly under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140, to set aside the waiver order on grounds that it was procured by fraud or misrepresentation. The particular juvenile division circuit judge who entered the waiver has, on his own motion, set that motion for hearing. In this proceeding, we grant the state’s application to preclude him from doing so.1

As we clearly indicated in the prior appearance of this case in State v. Del Rey, 643 So. 2d at 1146, its pendency in the criminal division renders it inappropriate and improper for any judge but the individual presiding over the criminal proceeding itself to rule upon the issues presented. See Iglesias v. State, 599 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 379 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert, denied, 388 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980); State v. D.R.S., 344 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See generally State v. Gary, 609 So. 2d 1291, 1294 (Fla.1992) (“the interests of justice require a rule designed to inhibit trial courts from engaging in a ‘ping-pong game’ by transferring a case back and forth, thereby jeopardizing the rights of parties and undermining public confidence in the judicial function”).

Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the order setting the cause before the respondent judge is quashed.2

Petition granted.

. We conclude that prohibition, as sought by the state, does not lie because every circuit judge has subject matter "jurisdiction” to consider any matter pending in the circuit court. See In re Peterson, 364 So. 2d 98, 99 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, we treat the papers before us as an application for certiorari to review the order setting the pending matter before the juvenile division judge and quash it as a departure from the essential requirements of the law.

. Our determination makes it unnecessary to consider the real questions as to whether Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140 is applicable to waiver orders at all or whether the particular ground upon which the motion is based in this case is cognizable under these circumstances.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw