IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.A., A CHILD
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Juvenile Procedure 8.165 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order adjudicating him a delinquent child and placing him on community control. Because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165, which requires that the trial court advise a child accused of having committed a delinquent act of the right to counsel at each stage of the proceeding and ensure, by a “thorough inquiry,” that any waiver of that right has been freely and intelligently made, we reverse. See, e.g., In the Interest of J.M., 601 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); K.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); R.V.P. v. State, 395 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). On remand, the trial court shall advise appellant fully regarding his right to counsel and, should appellant indicate a desire to waive that right, ensure, by a “thorough inquiry,” that such waiver is freely and intelligently made. After having done so, the trial court shall afford appellant the opportunity to plead anew to the charges made in the petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…free and intelligent; and 3) afford appellant an opportunity to enter a new plea to. the charges in the petition. See N.R.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); J.H. v. State, 679 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In Interest of D.L.A., 667 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Appellant contends secondly that the trial court erred by failing to determine that he entered his plea freely and intelligently because it failed to determine a factual basis for the plea and because it failed to apprise…
-
P.L.S. v. State, 745 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…horough inquiry” contemplated by Rule 8.165(b)(2). See A.M. v. State, 723 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); N.R.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In the Interest of D.L.A., 667 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The court’s questioning of appellant was not sufficient to determine whether appellant’s waiver of counsel was made knowingly and intelligently in consideration of his age, education, experience, mental condition, and the n…
-
N.R.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…gnment reflects that there was no “thorough inquiry” made into N.R.L.’s desire to waive his right to counsel, contrary to the requirement of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(2). Accordingly, we must reverse. See In the Interest of D.L.A., 667 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that reversal is required where child was not advised of his right to counsel at each stage and no inquiry was made to determine whether waiver of that right was freely and intelligently made). Upon remand, the require…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of R. v. P., 395 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- K.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Miller v. State, 601 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of J.M., 601 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)