E.J.J., A JUVENILE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court does not commit fundamental error by failing to make statutory inquiries under section 985.433(4)(c) when the juvenile was afforded an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court's failure to make statutory inquiries regarding a juvenile's feelings about an offense and appropriate penalty does not constitute fundamental error when th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“trial court did not commit fundamental error when it did not inquire 'about a juvenile's feelings about the offense committed, the harm caused to the victim or others, and what penalty he or she should be required to pay for such transgression,' as required by statute, where juvenile was not denied opportunity to be heard”
Holding based on L.S. v. State regarding statutory inquiry requirements
E.J.J., a juvenile, appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The trial court failed to inquire about the juvenile's feelings …
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 Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. L.S. v. State, 346 So. 3d 42, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting § 985.433(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2021)) (holding trial court did not commit fundamental error when it did not inquire “about a juvenile’s ‘feelings about the offense committed, the harm caused to the victim or others, and what penalty he or she should be required to pay for such transgression,’” as required by statute, where juvenile was not denied opportunity to be heard); cf. M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding fundamental error where trial court wholly failed to give juvenile and her father an opportunity to comment on issue of disposition prior to court’s determination); A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing and remanding adjudication of delinquency and disposition where juvenile’s counsel notified court as to juvenile and his mother’s presence, and “[t]he trial court refused to allow the child or his mother to speak”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith Michel v. State, 110 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- E.J.J. v. State, 346 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)