STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
A. M. C.
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.
An order granting a motion to dismiss a delinquency petition is an appealable final order in criminal and delinquency proceedings, consistent with criminal law standards.
[1] An order granting a motion to dismiss a delinquency petition constitutes an appealable final order when appealed by the State under Fla. …
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“In the civil context, such an order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In criminal cases, however, other districts have found similar orders appealable.”
Court distinguishing civil from criminal appeal standards regarding the finality of orders granting motions to dismiss
The State appealed a circuit court order that granted A.M.C.'s motion to dismiss a delinquency petition filed against A.M.C.…
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 Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
LABRIT, Judge.
The State appeals an order that granted A.M.C.'s motion to dismiss a delinquency petition against him. We affirm the order without comment but write to address our jurisdiction, which we must assess in every case. See Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243, 1245 (Fla. 1997); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 1.5 (2018 ed.). This appeal is before us pursuant to section 985.534(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2023), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.145(c)(1)(A). Both permit the State to appeal an order dismissing a petition for delinquency. See § 985.534(1)(b)1; Fla. R. App. P. 9.145(c)(1)(A). But the order on review did not dismiss the State's petition; it simply granted A.M.C.'s motion to dismiss. In the civil context, such an order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In criminal cases, however, other districts have found similar orders appealable. See State v. Den Besten, 374 So. 3d 874, 876 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); State v. Jiborn, 135 So. 3d 364, 365 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Nessim, 587 So. 2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc); see also State v. Diamond, 188 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 1966) (holding that an order granting a motion to quash an information, but not actually quashing it, is appealable). We agree with the reasoning of our sister courts and conclude that we have jurisdiction under section 985.543(1)(b)1 and rule 9.145(c)(1)(A) to review the order granting A.M.C.'s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. A. M. C. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…e civil context, such an order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In criminal cases, however, other districts have found similar orders appealable. See State v. Den Besten, 374 So. 3d 874, 876 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); State v. Jiborn, 135 So. 3d 364, 365 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Nessim, 587 So. 2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc); see also State v. Diamond, 188 So…
-
State v. A. M. C. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…e civil context, such an order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In criminal cases, however, other districts have found similar orders appealable. See State v. Den Besten, 374 So. 3d 874, 876 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); State v. Jiborn, 135 So. 3d 364, 365 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Nessim, 587 So. 2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc); see also State v. Diamond, 188 So…
Authorities Cited
- Polk Cnty. v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1997)
- Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. M. Dexter Hoffman, Noel K. Evans, & Evans & Donica, P.A., 793 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 188 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1966)
- State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Nessim, 587 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. A. M. C. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)