M.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A child was adjudicated delinquent for disorderly conduct but was represented at trial by a certified legal intern without proper written waiver or oral inquiry into the child's consent, and the trial court failed to provide specific reasons for the adjudication as required by statute. The court reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing due to these procedural errors.
The court held that the trial court erred in both respects: (1) representation by a certified legal intern requires a written waiver and oral inquiry into the child's consent, neither of which occurred here, and such error is not invited error attributable to the child who was not fully apprised of his rights; and (2) the trial court must state specific reasons for adjudication either in writing or on the record, and failure to do so is reversible error even without contemporaneous objection.
[1] A child's right to counsel requires an oral inquiry and a written waiver when represented by a certified legal intern.
[2] A trial court's failure to obtain a required waiver for representation by a certified legal intern is not invited error by the child.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“it appears from the record that the court never conducted an oral inquiry of Appellant concerning his decision to allow for a certified legal intern to represent him at trial”
Establishes the first procedural error: lack of oral inquiry into consent for representation by certified intern
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.C., a child, was represented at an adjudicatory hearing by a certified legal intern under supervision of an assistant public defender. The record sh…
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 Invited Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge.
Appellant, M.C., a child, appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent for disorderly conduct. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for new proceedings.
At the adjudicatory hearing, Appellant was represented by a certified legal intern under the supervision of an assistant public defender. Contrary to required procedure, it appears from the record that the court never conducted an oral inquiry of Appellant concerning his decision to allow for a certified legal intern to represent him at trial. R.M. v. State, 664 So. 2d 42, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995.) Neither does it appear that Appellant ever executed a written waiver of his right to be represented by an attorney and his consent to be represented by a certified legal intern. In Interest of J.H., 596 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1992).
The State argues that any mistake was self-inflicted and that under the rule of invited error Appellant ought not be allowed to take advantage of an error which he himself induced. It is the State’s contention that it was the responsibility of the supervising attorney or the Office of the Public Defender which was appointed to represent Appellant to ensure that a written waiver was obtained and that in the absence of such a waiver, the Office of the Public Defender should not have allowed Appellant to be represented by the certified intern. While we believe that the supervising attorney has some responsibility as an Officer of the Court not to knowingly permit and allow for the representation of Appellant by a certified legal intern until and unless the required waiver and consent was obtained, we do not believe such an error to be the fault of the Appellant who, as has been shown, was never fully apprised of his rights.
We find further error on the part of the trial court in failing to indicate, either in the written order or at the adjudicatory hearing, specific reasons for adjudicating Appellant delinquent as required by statute.1 The State’s argument that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because it was not raised in the trial court is without merit for several reasons. First, the contemporaneous objection rule is inapplicable in instances such as this where the trial court’s error in failing to state specific reasons for adjudicating Appellant delinquent is apparent from the record. Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7, 9-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(citing State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla.1984)). Second, Appellant could not have been expected to make a contemporaneous objection at the adjudicatory hearing because the trial court could have satisfied the statutory requirement in a subsequent written order. Id.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new adjudicatory hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. . Section 39.052(4)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1995), states:
If the court determines that the child should be adjudicated as having committed a delinquent act and should be committed to the department, such determination shall be in writing or on the record of the hearing. The determination shall include a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duval v. State, 744 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…; record silent regarding juvenile's waiver or consent and no showing that intern was supervised at hearing); L.R. v. State, 698 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing because written consent failed to correctly name legal intern); M.C. v. State, 687 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reversing based on lack of written consent and lack of inquiry by court regarding such consent); S.B. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming; although written consent form was technically deficient, presence of…
-
C.B. A Child v. State, 973 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…representation by a certified legal intern is fatal. See also L.R. v. State, 698 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing an adjudication because the written consent form contained the wrong name of the certified legal intern); M.C. v. State, 687 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing an adjudication because the juvenile did not execute a written waiver of his right to be represented by an attorney). The outcome here must be the same even though it appears that the supervising attorney was pres…
-
C.O. v. State, 707 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…rry, 647 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla.1994); Harris v. State, 633 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Moreover, there is an absence of specific findings. § 39.052(4)(e)l, Fla.Stat. (1995); J.M. v. State, 692 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); M.C. v. State, 687 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication and remand. GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- In the Interest of J.H., 596 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1992)
- Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- R.M. v. State, 664 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)