STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
B.P., A CHILD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether a juvenile's guilty plea was valid when the trial court failed to advise him of his right to counsel and failed to obtain a knowing waiver. The Court held that denial of counsel constitutes fundamental error reviewable on appeal even without a motion to withdraw the plea, and remanded for the trial court to properly advise the juvenile and allow him to enter a new plea if appropriate.
The denial of counsel to a juvenile constitutes fundamental error that is reviewable and correctable on appeal even absent a motion to withdraw the plea. The trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165 by not advising B.P. of his right to counsel and not obtaining a proper waiver.
[1] A juvenile's right to counsel is fundamental and requires the trial court to advise the juvenile of this right and ensure any waiver is free and intelligent.
[2] Failure to advise a juvenile of the right to counsel and obtain a valid waiver constitutes fundamental error, reviewable on appeal even without a motion to withdraw a ple…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“even absent a motion to withdraw a plea, failure to advise a juvenile of his right to counsel in accordance with the rule is reviewable and correctable on appeal”
Establishes that fundamental error of denying counsel is reviewable on appeal without requiring the procedural step of filing a motion to withdraw the plea
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.P., a juvenile, pled guilty to grand theft and resisting an officer without violence. At the plea hearing, B.P. was shown a video explaining his rig…
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 Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, J.
We have for review B.P. v. State, 759 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which cited to the decision in T.G. v. State, 741 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a case that was accepted for review by this Court. See State v. T.G., 751 So. 2d 1254 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
B.P., a juvenile, pled guilty to one count of grand theft and one count of resisting an officer without violence. Thereafter, the trial court entered an adjudication of delinquency and committed B.P. to a Level 8 program. At the plea hearing, B.P. appeared with his probation officer and was shown a video that explained his right to counsel. Although a public defender was consulted during the course of the hearing, nothing in the record indicates that the public defender was appointed to represent B.P. B.P. was also without representation at the disposition hearing.
B.P. appealed to the Fifth District, claiming that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to offer him counsel at the time of either his plea or disposition hearing and failed to obtain a waiver of counsel as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165. The State argued that B.P. was required to file a motion to withdraw his plea in order to preserve the issue. The Fifth District, relying on its decision in T.G. v. State, 741 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), held that even absent a motion to withdraw a plea, failure to advise a juvenile of his right to counsel in accordance with the rule is reviewable and correctable on appeal. 741 So. 2d at 518-19.
For the reasons expressed in our recent decision in State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla.2001), we approve the decision in this case because the denial of counsel constituted fundamental error. Thus, we remand this case to the trial court so that it can properly advise B.P. of his right to assistance of counsel, ensure by a thorough inquiry that any waiver is free and intelligent, and allow B.P. to enter a new plea if appropriate.
. It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)…). Undoubtedly, “[t]he right to counsel is a fundamental right.” Vileenor v. State, 500 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Florida courts, including this Court, have found deprivations of counsel to be fundamental error. See, e.g., State v. B.P., 810 So. 2d 918, 919 (Fla.2002) (“[T]he denial of counsel [at a juvenile plea hearing] constituted fundamental error.”); Brady v. State, 910 So. 2d 388, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“The denial of Brady’s right to counsel is fundamental error requiring reversal.”); J.R.…
-
Reynaldo Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 366 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2023)…tituted a fundamental error, and we approved that decision. See Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 575 . Other examples from Florida cases include the complete deprivation of counsel during both a juvenile plea hearing and a disposition hearing, State v. B.P., 810 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2002); State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001), a juvenile plea hearing, J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a violation of probation hearing, Brady v. State, 910 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and a violation of community…
-
M.Q. v. State, 818 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…A.D. v. State, 740 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). This includes, inter alia, at the plea and dispositional hearings. If counsel is waived by a child, the record must demonstrate that the waiver was freely and intelligently given. See State v. B.P., 810 So. 2d 918 (Fla.2002); V.S.J. v. State, 793 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Courts should be even more careful when accepting a waiver of counsel from a juvenile than in cases involving adults, and the inquiry for juveniles must be at least equal to that accord…
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
- State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001)
- T.G. v. State, 741 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- B.P. v. State, 759 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Morris v. State, 759 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)