JOSE REYNA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jose Reyna, a sixteen-year-old charged with burglary, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's direct file statute that allowed the State to prosecute him as an adult. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss, holding that the statute does not violate separation of powers or equal protection principles.
The direct file statute is constitutional and does not violate separation of powers or equal protection principles. The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss, and State v. Cain remains dispositive in rejecting such constitutional challenges to the direct file provision.
[1] A statute allowing the state to direct file an information against a sixteen-year-old defendant for burglary of an occupied dwelling, prosecuting them as an adult, does n…
[2] A statute allowing the state to direct file an information against a sixteen-year-old defendant, prosecuting them as an adult, does not violate the equal protection claus…
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“Exercising its discretion under paragraph 985.227(l)(b), Florida Statutes, the State elected to direct file an information against the defendant, so that the defendant was prosecuted as an adult.”
Establishes the statutory mechanism that enabled adult prosecution of a juvenile defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReyna was sixteen years old when he committed burglary of an occupied dwelling on March 20, 2002. The State exercised its discretion under Florida Sta…
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 Equal Protection Of The Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
On this appeal, Jose Reyna challenges the constitutionality of paragraph 985.227(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Reyna was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling. At the time of the crime, the defendant was sixteen years old.1
Exercising its discretion under paragraph 985.227(l)(b), Florida Statutes, the State elected to direct file an information against the defendant, so that the defendant was prosecuted as an adult. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended information, arguing that paragraph 985.227(l)(b) and subsection 985.227(4), Florida Statutes were unconstitutional. The defendant argued that the statute violated Florida’s separation of powers doctrine and deprived the defendant of the equal protection of the laws.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The defendant entered into a plea bargain whereby he entered a plea of no contest in exchange for one year of probation and a withhold of adjudication. As part of the plea bargain, the defendant reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.
Although the defendant correctly states that the direct file statute has been amended over the years, we conclude that State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1980), remains dispositive and mandates rejection of the defendant’s claim. See also Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 573, 576 (Fla.1975); Brazill v. State, 845 So. 2d 282, 286-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Grier v. State, 605 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Jones v. State, 443 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Affirmed.2
. The crime date was March 20, 2002.
. The defendant also argued that paragraph 985.227(l)(a), Florida Statutes was unconstitutional. That provision applies to a child who was fourteen or fifteen years of age at the time of the offense. Since the defendant was sixteen at the time of the offense, paragraph 985.227(l)(a) does not apply to him. Thus, we affirm the denial of that part of the defendant’s motion for lack of standing. See State v. Millington, 377 So. 2d 685, 687 (Fla.1979); M.Z. v. State, 747 So. 2d 978, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 117 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…e direct file statute has been amended over the years, State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1980), remains dispositive and mandates rejection of Hernandez’s claim, as he had no absolute right to be processed and charged as a juvenile. Reyna v. State, 866 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Brazill v. State, 845 So. 2d 282, 287-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Grier v. State, 605 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Jones v. State, 443 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Competency to Stand Trial Finally, Hernandez ma…
-
State v. C.W., 62 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…cluded a felony criminal mischief count.1 Section 985.557(6) affords the prosecutor the discretion to direct-file an information against this appellee. The appellee had no absolute right to be processed and charged as a juvenile. See Reyna v. State, 866 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that juvenile has no equal protection right to be processed in juvenile, rather than adult, court); Brazill v. State, 845 So. 2d 282, 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that children do not have absolute right to be tried i…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980)
- Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1975)
- Brazill v. State, 845 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- State v. Millington, 377 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1979)
- M.Z. v. State, 747 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Jones v. State, 443 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Grier v. State, 605 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)