J.M.B., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2001-11-09
No. 2D00-4834
PARKER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
800 So. 2d 317 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases

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

J.M.B. appeals his adjudication as delinquent for trespass and false identification to police. The court reverses because the trial judge failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the waiver of the right to counsel, violating Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, and thus the juvenile's due process rights were not protected.


Holding

The court reversed the adjudication of delinquency because the trial judge failed to conduct a proper waiver inquiry under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.080 and 8.165. The judge did not inform J.M.B. of possible dispositions, did not advise him of his right to counsel at every stage of proceedings, and did not address other required areas of inquiry. Therefore, there was no effective waiver of counsel.


Headnotes

[1] A juvenile's waiver of the right to counsel is invalid if the court fails to conduct a thorough inquiry into the juvenile's comprehension of the offer of counsel and capa…

[2] A juvenile court judge must comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.080(b) when determining if a juvenile's plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered, including…

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

“a child "shall not be deemed to have waived the assistance of counsel until the entire process of offering counsel has been completed and a thorough inquiry into the child's comprehension of that offer and the capacity to make that choice intelligently and understandingly has been made."”

Establishes the standard for valid waiver of counsel in juvenile proceedings under Florida Rule 8.165(b)(2)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

J.M.B. appeared for arraignment without a parent, guardian, or counsel and stated he did not want an attorney. An unknown female entered a not guilty …

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
CASANUEVA, Judge.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

J.M.B. appeals an adjudication of delinquency and an order of commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the offenses of trespass and giving false identification to a law enforcement officer. We reverse because the record does not establish a proper waiver of the juvenile’s right to counsel.

Following the filing of the two-count petition, J.M.B. appeared for arraignment unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or counsel. He told the trial judge that he was not represented by an attorney and did not want one. There was no further discussion on the matter. Later in the proceeding, a person identified in the record as an “unknown female voice” stated: ‘We’ll enter a not guilty plea for him at this point.” The case was then set for trial.

At his next visit to the court, and apparently after the trial judge had concluded with him, J.M.B. asked to come before the judge again in order to change his plea to guilty. The judge advised him at this time that by entering a plea there would be no trial, that he had a right to a trial, and that he had the right to an attorney to represent him at that trial. J.M.B. adhered to his desire to plead guilty, and the trial judge accepted the plea. J.M.B. then signed a written waiver of counsel form. He was still unaccompanied by a parent or guardian.

At his third court appearance, the trial judge expressed disagreement with the department’s sentencing recommendation, clearly preferring a more restrictive level of commitment for this juvenile with a lengthy record of probation violations. When the trial judge ordered the case restaffed, she offered J.M.B. the services of an appointed attorney. J.M.B. accepted the offer. At his ultimate appearance before the judge, for final disposition, J.M.B. was present with his appointed assistant public defender. With a minimum of discussion, the trial judge adjudicated J.M.B. delinquent gnd committed him to a level 8 facility.

The record shows that the trial judge failed to follow two important rulés of juvenile procedure. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.080 requires that the judge determine that a child’s plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered. To facilitate this determination, subsection (b) of this rule mandates, at a minimum, an inquiry into seven areas. The trial judge’s inquiry of J.M.B. did not comply with this rule in several respects. The judge did not inform him of the possible dispositions available to the court, Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(b)(1), and did not advise him that he was entitled to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceedings — not just at a trial. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(b)(2). The trial judge also omitted any inquiry into the rights outlined in subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) of this rule.

Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(2) states that a child “shall not be deemed to have waived the assistance of counsel until the entire process of offering counsel has been completed and a thorough inquiry into the child’s comprehension of that offer and the capacity to make that choice intelligently and understandingly has been made.” Here, because the inquiry under rule 8.080 was incomplete, there was no effective waiver of counsel under rule 8.165. Under similar circumstances this court has reversed an adjudication of delinquency. G.E.F. v. State, 782 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Moreover, the trial judge failed to renew the offer of counsel at each stage of the proceedings, in violation of rule 8.165(a). B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also In Interest of J.C.S., 560 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error. M.A.F. v. State, 742 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

We recognize that the juvenile court judge must contend with an unusually heavy docket, and was dealing, in this case, with a juvenile who was no stranger to the ways of the juvenile justice system. However, due process must be provided.

Reversed and remanded.

PARKER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • C.K. v. State, 909 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …court to follow when determining whether a guilty or no contest plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered and whether there is a factual basis for it. The court must make an inquiry into seven areas. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(b)(l)-(7); J.M.B. v. State, 800 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The record shows that the trial court essentially failed to comply with rule 8.080.1 However, rule 8.080(f) provides that the trial court’s “[fjailure to follow any of the procedures in this rule shall not render a plea void…
  • M.M.K. v. State, 821 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(4) provides that if a child waives his right to counsel at any stage of the proceedings, the trial court should renew the offer of assistance of counsel at each subsequent stage of the proceedings. See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error); B.I. v. State, 492 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (concluding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing);…
  • …uvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(2)); T.M. v. State, 811 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that trial judge fundamentally erred, in failing to conduct a proper inquiry regarding juvenile’s waiver of counsel prior to accepting plea); J.M.B. v. State, 800 So. 2d 317, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing “that the juvenile court judge must contend with an unusually heavy docket, and was dealing, in this case, with a juvenile who was no stranger to the ways of the juvenile justice system,” but finding that trial c…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw