A.M.W., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
GARY PORTESY, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 juvenile petitioner challenged his placement in secure detention for a second twenty-one-day period after being taken into custody on a failure-to-appear charge. The court held that the trial court lacked authority to issue the pick-up order for failure to appear without proper notice, and alternatively, that successive detention on the same charge violates Florida law limiting juvenile detention to twenty-one days per offense.
The trial court lacked authority to issue the pick-up order because A.M.W. was never properly noticed of the arraignment hearing. Additionally, a juvenile cannot be placed back into detention on the same charge after an initial detention period; doing so would impermissibly extend detention beyond the statutory twenty-one-day limit per offense.
[1] A juvenile cannot be taken into custody for failing to appear if they were not properly notified of the hearing.
[2] A juvenile's failure to appear, by itself, cannot support placement in detention.
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“Section 985.207(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a juvenile may be taken into custody for failing to appear after being properly noticed. It is undisputed that the summons issued for AM.W.'s arraignment hearing was returned unserved and, consequently, he never received proper notice. Therefore, the pick-up order issued in this case was unauthorized.”
Establishes that the pick-up order was invalid due to lack of proper notice, satisfying the statutory requirement under section 985.207(1)(c).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.M.W. was arrested for strong-arm robbery on February 9, 1998, and detained for twenty-one days. An arraignment hearing was scheduled for May 7, 1998…
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 Summons cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A.M.W., a juvenile, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his placement in secure detention for a second twenty-one-day period prior to an adjudicatory hearing. After determining that A.M.W. was entitled to relief, this court granted the petition by unpublished order and we now issue this opinion to explain our reasons for doing so.
A.M.W. was arrested on a charge of strong-arm robbery on February 9, 1998. After a detention hearing, the trial court ordered A.M.W. placed in secure detention, where he remained for the full twenty-one days authorized by section 985.215(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
Thereafter, an arraignment hearing was scheduled for May 7, 1998. A.M.W. was never notified of this arraignment date, and, not surprisingly, he failed to appear. Because of his failure to appear, the trial court issued a pick-up order pursuant to which A.M.W. was eventually taken into custody. A detention hearing was conducted and the trial court, once again, ordered A.M.W. to be placed in secure detention for twenty-one days. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, A.M.W. challenges this second twenty-one-day detention as well as the trial court’s issuance of the pick-up order. The State concedes error. We first address the issuance of the pick-up order, which is the term commonly used in juvenile proceedings to describe the orders to take into custody that are authorized by section 985.207, Florida Statutes (1997).
The unauthorized issuance of such orders has been a recurring problem addressed in many of the juvenile habeas corpus petitions recently brought before this court. A.M.W. argues that, in this case, the trial court had no authority to issue a pick-up order for his failure to appear. He is correct.
Section 985.207(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a juvenile may be taken into custody for failing to appear after being properly noticed. It is undisputed that the summons issued for AM.W.’s arraignment hearing was returned unserved and, consequently, he never received proper notice.
Therefore, the pick-up order issued in this case was unauthorized.
Nevertheless, even if the pick-up order had been authorized under section 985.207, the trial court was without authority to order the continued detention of A.M.W.
The law is well-settled that a failure to appear, by itself, cannot support placement in detention. See, e.g., S.J. v. State, 596 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); W.N. v. Fryer, 572 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Apparently recognizing this, the Department of Juvenile Justice used the strong-arm robbery charge as the current offense in scoring the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) it used to justify A.M.W. ⅛ second twenty-one day detention. The error in this approach is that A.M.W. had already been detained on this charge. Once a juvenile has been detained, that juvenile cannot be placed back into detention on the same charge prior to an adjudicatory hearing on that charge. To allow a trial court to order a successive twenty-one-day detention in this manner would ignore the established principle that a juvenile cannot be detained for longer than twenty-one days on the same offense. See, e.g., T.O. v. Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center, 668 So. 2d 243, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA), aff'd, 684 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1996); L.J. v. Fryer, 565 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Because the second detention of A.M.W. was unauthorized, A.M.W. was entitled to immediate relief, which was granted by prior order of this court.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. D.D.B., 737 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…elocated. The assistant state attorney insisted, however, that the judge issue a pickup order for the juvenile. The judge refused to do so, an act well within his discretion. See State v. S.C.W., 718 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); A.M.W. v. Portesy, 714 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In taking the additional step of dismissing the case on its own motion, however, the trial court exceeded its bounds and encroached upon the prosecutor’s authority. See State v. P. S., 587 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accord…
-
State v. S.C.W., 718 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…without receiving a notice to appear pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.045, we conclude that proper notice for purposes of section 985.207(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), is not accomplished by first class mail. Cf. A.M.W. v. Portesy, 714 So. 2d 1170, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1816 (Fla. 2d DCA July 29, 1998). Even if a juvenile does not appear for arraignment when properly noticed, we conclude that a trial court has discretion to decline to issue an order to take the child into custody under the langu…
-
M.A.M. v. Vurro, 2 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…by the court.” We conclude that sections 985.255(2) and 985.26(2) clearly prohibit the trial court from ordering that a child charged with domestic violence be held in secure detention for more than twenty-one days in total. See A.M.W. v. Portesy, 714 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“[A] juvenile cannot be detained for longer than twenty-one days on the same offense.”); T.O. v. Alachua Reg’l Juvenile Detention Ctr., 668 So. 2d 243, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA) (holding that juvenile’s detention was illegal when…
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
- Alachua Reg'l Juv. Detention Ctr. v. T.O., 684 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1996)
- Philpot v. State, 668 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- W.N. v. Fryer, 572 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- S.J. v. State, 596 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- L.J. v. Fryer, 565 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)