MORRIS MORGAN FALAGON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Morris Morgan Falagon, an unmarried minor, challenged the validity of his second judgment and sentence for breaking and entering and grand larceny because his parents were not notified of the second arraignment and proceedings. The court affirmed the denial of his motion for relief, holding that one notice to parents prior to the initial trial is sufficient for all subsequent proceedings on the same charges.
One notice to the parents of an unmarried minor prior to trial is sufficient to permit the minor to be arraigned, tried, convicted, or sentenced at any time thereafter, including in second or successive proceedings on the same charges, provided the notice is given within a reasonable period of time prior to the initial trial.
“F.S. § 932.38, F.S.A. requires that due notice of any offense charged against any unmarried minor shall be given to his parents 'prior to the trial thereof.' Failure to give such a notice renders the judgment and sentence void.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for parental notice and the consequence of non-compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFalagon, an unmarried minor, was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. His parents received written not…
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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Morris Morgan Falagon, an unmarried minor, was charged with the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. His parents were given written notice of the charges and the date set for his appearance before the court. At that time they appeared with him and he entered a plea of guilty to lesser included offenses. Judgment and sentence followed but they were vacated and a new trial granted in a subsequent Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, proceeding because he was insolvent at the time of the plea and he neither had counsel nor did he waive his right to counsel. Fal-agon thereafter appeared with court-appointed counsel and again entered a plea of guilty and was again adjudged guilty and sentenced. Thereafter he filed a second motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1 contending that the second judgment and sentence was void because his parents were not notified of the second arraignment, plea, judgment and sentence. He appeals from a denial of the second motion.
Almost four years intervened between the notice to his parents and the second arraignment and plea. Falagon was an unmarried minor during all of that time. F.S. § 932.38, F.S.A. requires that due notice of any offense charged against any unmarried minor shall be given to his parents “prior to the trial thereof.” Failure to give such a notice renders the judgment and sentence void. The purpose of the statute is to furnish a safeguard to unmarried minors accused of crime in order that such a minor’s parents may have the opportunity to come to the assistance of the accused minor. For this reason it has often been stated that the notice must be given within a reasonable period of time prior to the trial. However, the reasonableness of the *806period of time intervening between the notice and the trial is determined by the sufficiency of the period of time to enable the parents to have the opportunity to exercise the beneficial purposes of the statute. Where as here the parents of an unmarried minor receive notice of the offenses charged against such a minor, then that minor may be arraigned, tried, convicted or sentenced at any time after a reasonable period from the notice including second or successive proceedings on the same charges without any further notice to his parents.
The order denying relief is affirmed.
SMITH, C. ' J., WALDEN, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, con■cur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doll Holloway v. State, 216 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…uiring that the opportunity be made available for consultation and advice with the individuals, who, society must assume, are those most vitally concerned with the minor’s best interests.” See also to the same effect Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 804; Bran-son v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 138 So. 2d 316; Milligan v. State, 1933, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260 (a death penalty case); Craig v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 196; DiMarco v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 674; Brockman v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 S…
-
Hardy v. State, 190 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Falagon v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 804. SHANNON, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.…
-
McArthur Belin v. State, 250 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…ts being physically present, the trial court had a duty to postpone the trial until his parents could be present, subpoenaed by the court if necessary. This argument is clearly contrary to the holding of this court in Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 804, at 806, wherein we stated: “Where as here the parents of an unmarried minor receive notice of the offenses charged against such a minor, then that minor may be arraigned, tried, convicted or sentenced at any time after a reasonable period from the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence