BOBBY ALLEN BRYANT, 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.
Bobby Allen Bryant challenged his 1968 first-degree murder conviction by filing a motion claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he was seventeen at the time of the crime and should have been tried in juvenile court. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that under 1968 law, a person who had attained age seventeen was treated as an adult and was properly prosecuted in criminal court.
The trial court had proper jurisdiction. Under Florida law in 1968, a juvenile was defined as a person under seventeen years old at the time of the crime. Bryant, being seventeen at the time of his offense, was classified as an adult and was properly prosecuted in criminal court rather than juvenile court.
[1] A motion filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 attacking a criminal conviction is to be treated as if filed under the correct postconviction rule.
[2] An absence of jurisdiction may be raised at any time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(3).
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“By its own terms, Rule 1.540 applies only to civil causes, not to collateral claims associated with a criminal conviction.”
Establishes that Rule 1.540 cannot be used for criminal postconviction relief; establishes the procedural error in Bryant's filing method
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobby Allen Bryant was convicted of first-degree murder in 1968 when he was seventeen years old. The death penalty was sought in his case. Bryant file…
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 Juvenile Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Bobby Allen Bryant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, seeking to attack his conviction and sentence for first degree murder committed in 1968. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant-appellant Bryant has appealed.
The defendant was incorrect to file a motion under Rule 1.540. The Florida Supreme Court has said, “[B]y its own terms, Rule 1.540 applies only to civil causes, not to collateral claims associated with a criminal conviction.” Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498, 500 (Fla.1994); see also Williams v. State, 925 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). When such a motion is filed, it is to be treated as if it had been filed under the correct postconviction rule. See Steinhorst, 636 So. 2d at 500; Williams, 925 So. 2d at 428.
A claim that the trial court was without jurisdiction may be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(3). Under the case law, “absence of jurisdiction may be raised at any time.” Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 703, 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and cases cited therein.
Treating the motion as having been filed under Rule 3.850, the motion was correctly denied. Defendant-appellant Bryant maintains that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to try him because he was seventeen at the time he committed his crime in 1968. The defendant maintains he should have been tried in the juvenile court.
The defendant’s argument is based on a mistaken premise. In 1968 a juvenile was a person who was under the age of seventeen at the time of the crime. See § 39.01(6), Fla. Stat. (1967). ' A person who had attained the age of seventeen was treated as an adult. Id. at § 39.01(7). Since the defendant was seventeen at the time he committed the crime, he was an adult for purposes of the criminal law, and was properly prosecuted as an adult.* The defendant has requested that the lower tribunal number be corrected. That point has merit. The defendant’s first degree murder case was one in which the death penalty was sought. See Bryant v. State, 307 So. 2d 921 (Fla. Sd DCA 1975). Under the numbering system in effect at the time, the correct lower tribunal number was 2532. We remand for correction of the lower tribunal number. Affirmed; remanded for correction of lower tribunal number. *
Although not relevant for this appeal, the juvenile court became part of the circuit court in 1973. See § 26.012(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1972); ch. 72-404, §§ 3, 31, Laws of Fla.; S.J. Res. 52-D, 1972 Laws of Fla., 97,112.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gamble v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…PER CURIAM. [*2] Affirmed. See Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498, 500 (Fla. 1994) (“By its own terms, rule 1.540 applies only to civil causes, not to collateral claims associated with a criminal conviction.”); Bryant v. State, 971 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“The defendant was incorrect to file a motion under Rule 1.540 . . . When such a motion is filed, it is to be treated as if it had been filed under the correct postconviction rule.").…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1994)
- Readon v. State, 925 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Bryant v. State, 307 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)