C.J., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
C.J., a juvenile defendant, sought mandamus to compel the State to offer a pretrial diversion plan (Walker Plan) complying fully with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.075. The court denied the petition, holding that while the State must comply with procedural rules governing submitted plans, the State has no duty to offer any particular plan or agree to specific terms.
The court held that while rule 8.075(b)(1) requires the State to agree to and sign any plan it submits, the rule does not require the State to agree to any offered plan. Therefore, C.J. has no established legal right to demand a particular offer from the State, and mandamus does not apply because the State has no indisputable ministerial duty to propose a plan on C.J.'s preferred terms.
[1] Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires a petitioner to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, an indisputable legal duty on the part of the resp…
[2] A state attorney is not legally obligated to agree to any particular pretrial diversion plan offered by a juvenile defendant.
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“Mandamus is a common law remedy used to enforce an "established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law."”
Establishes the legal standard for mandamus relief that C.J. must satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.J. was offered a pretrial diversion plan by the State that incorporated some but not all provisions of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.075. Spe…
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 Adjudicatory Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.J., the petitioner, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the State to offer him a “Walker Plan” as outlined in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.075.1 The State offered a pretrial diversion plan to C.J. that took into account other provisions of rule 8.075, such as the requirement that the plan contain a stipulation that the speedy trial rule is waived, but it did not track the rule in all respects.
C.J. requests this court to order the State to remove some of the additional requirements from the offered plan. Specifically, the plan offered by the State would require C.J. to agree that if he violated the terms of the plan then he would enter a plea of guilty to the charges, thus giving up his right to an adjudicatory hearing.
The applicable standard for review of this issue was described by this court in Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997):
Mandamus is a common law remedy used to enforce an “established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law.” Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1991). A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law. See Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
A Walker Plan, in its pertinent part, is described as:
(b) Plan of Proposed Treatment, Training, or Conduct. After the filing of a petition and prior to the adjudicatory hearing, a plan of proposed treatment, training, or conduct may be submitted on behalf of the child in lieu of a plea. The appropriate agencies of the Department of Juvenile Justice or other agency as designated by the court shall be the supervising agencies for said plan and the terms and conditions of all such plans shall be formulated in conjunction with the supervising agency involved. The submission of a plan is not an admission of the allegations of the petition of delinquency.
If such a plan is submitted the procedure shall be as follows:
(1) The plan must be in writing, agreed to and signed in all cases by the state attorney, the child, and, when rep resented, by the child’s counsel, and, unless excused by the court, by the parents or custodian. An authorized agent of the supervising agency involved shall indicate whether the agency recommends the acceptance of the plan.
Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.075.
C.J. asserts that mandamus is applicable in this case because the State is required to comply with the laws and rules of Florida. However, even though rule 8.075(b)(1) requires the agreement of the state attorney for an offered plan to be submitted to the court, the rule does not require the state attorney to agree to any offered plan. Therefore, C.J. does not have the right to demand a particular offer by the State. Further, a defendant does not have the right to demand a specific plea bargain. See Fairweather v. State, 505 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ concur. . According to the Department of Juvenile Justice, the pretrial diversion plan authorized by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.075(b) was originally developed by Pinellas County Circuit Judge Walker, hence the name “Walker Plan”.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge OF THE Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 794 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…undermine the policy against discrimination in the workplace by rendering such promises unreliable in the [*636] eyes of the people they are intended to protect. Mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a clear legal duty. C.J. v. State, 779 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In this case, most of the items requested by the petitioners are not judicial records subject to compulsory public disclosure. Any such materials that do qualify as judicial records are rendered confidential by the very rules and…
-
L.D.S. v. State, 791 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…or conduct in lieu of a plea. Such a pretrial diversion plan, authorized by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.075(b), is commonly called a “Walker Plan” because Pinellas County Circuit Judge William Walker originally developed it. C.J. v. State, 779 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); R.K. v. State, 779 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, although L.D.S. was provided with a rehabilitation plan purporting to be a Walker Plan, it failed to track all of Rule 8.075’s provisions. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedur…
Authorities Cited
- Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Fairweather v. State, 505 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Sherrill Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)