G.L., A CHILD, 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.
G.L., a juvenile convicted of marijuana possession, petitioned for habeas corpus relief challenging his placement in Restrictiveness Level Six despite the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation for probation. The court denied the petition without prejudice due to an inadequate record, including missing transcripts and unclear factual circumstances.
The court cannot determine whether G.L. is entitled to habeas relief because the record is inadequate. The petition is denied without prejudice, allowing resubmission with a complete record.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be denied without prejudice when the appellate record is inadequate to review the claims raised.
[2] The burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review rests with the petitioner.
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“Because the record is woefully inadequate, we have little choice but to deny the petition without prejudice.”
Establishes the primary reason for denial—insufficient record for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.L. pleaded guilty to marijuana possession. At the first dispositional hearing, the trial court placed him in Restrictiveness Level Six despite DJJ's…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
G.L., a juvenile, petitions this court for the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Because the record is woefully inadequate, we have little choice but to deny the petition without prejudice.
Briefly, the trial court accepted G.L.’s guilty plea to a possession of marijuana charge. At the first dispositional hearing, the judge placed him in Restrictiveness Level Six, even though the Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”), recommended probation. G.L. was originally held in a juvenile detention center by virtue of an order to “remain detained pending placement,” but upon later vacation of the order by the trial court, the juvenile was released to the custody of one of his parents. After being reset a number of times, a second disposition hearing was held, the result being once again the trial court ordering G.L. to be placed in Restrictiveness Level Six, over the continuing recommendation of DJJ for probation. Unfortunately we have not been provided with a copy of the transcript of this hearing, so we do not know why the judge ruled as he did. Apparently, however, G.L. was detained.
About a week later the juvenile sought habeas relief in this court, alleging that a new DJJ Detention Risk Assessment had not been performed, and that G.L. did not meet the criteria for Maximum Risk Eligibility. A placement review was then scheduled for December 10, 2005.
Based on these allegations, we required an expedited response from the State. The State, however, did not tell us what happened at the December 1st placement review, and said only that it had not yet received the transcript of the detention hearing.
Unfortunately, at this time we find ourselves in the following position:
1. We do not know what occurred at the second dispositional hearing, as we have no transcript of the proceeding;
2. We do not know if G.L. is still being held;
3. We do not know if G.L. meets the criteria for Maximum Risk Eligibility;
4. We do not know if a new Detention Risk Assessment was performed;
5. We do not know the result of the December 1st placement review; and;
6. We do not know if the trial court made a written finding justifying why a Level Six placement was ordered despite the recommendation of DJJ.
We are, thus, put in a position where we can not properly act on the petition. As the burden of bringing forth an adequate record is placed upon the petitioner, who in this instance is represented by counsel, and we cannot simply presume that error exists, we deny the petition without prejudice to its being refiled with an adequate record.1 See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Labadie v. State, 840 So. 2d 332, 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); cf., Smith v. State, 866 So. 2d 51 (Fla.2004). We look forward to a substantially better presentation of this case in the future.
DENIED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . In the case of a person seeking habeas corpus relief who is both detained and unrepresented, we might well view the requirement to provide a transcript differently.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & Dep't of Juv. Just. v. S.M., 131 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2013)…of review.” State v. Blair, 39 So. 3d 1190, 1191-92 (Fla.2010). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied when the petitioner fails to provide the district court with an adequate record to review the petition. See, e.g., G.L. v. State, 917 So. 2d 342, 342-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (denying habeas petition due to “woefully inadequate” record provided by petitioner); King v. Byrd, 590 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (denying habeas petition due to petitioner providing inadequate record that would hav…
-
Andria Michelle Kerchner v. State, 103 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…r motion to set reasonable bond. Unfortunately, we cannot properly act on the petition. Because Kerchner has failed to supply this court with an adequate record, we are unable to review the correctness of the trial court’s ruling. See G.L. v. State, 917 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to her right to refile with an adequate record. PETITION DENIED. GRIFFIN, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 866 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2004)
- Montville Labadie v. State, 840 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)