IN THE INTEREST OF JOHN JOSEPH GAGLIANO, 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.
John Joseph Gagliano appealed an order waiving juvenile court jurisdiction and transferring his case to adult court. The court held that while the evidence supported the waiver decision, the juvenile court's order did not comply with the statutory requirement to make explicit written findings that waiver was in the public's best interest, as amended in 1967.
The court affirmed that the evidence supported the waiver decision but reversed and remanded because the order failed to include the specific written findings required by the 1967 amended statute that waiver is in the best interest of the public.
[1] A juvenile court judge must make specific findings in a written order that waiving jurisdiction and certifying a case to adult court is in the best interest of the public…
[2] A juvenile court order relinquishing jurisdiction and certifying charges to adult court must comply with statutory requirements, including specific findings of public int…
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“If the judge deems that any child brought into juvenile court as a delinquent child, who is fourteen (14) years of age or older, and who, if an adult, would be charged with a violation of Florida law constituting a felony, should be transferred to the court which would have jurisdiction of the child if the child were an adult, the judge may, after hearing, enter an order waiving jurisdiction and certifying the case to the court which would have jurisdiction of the child if the child were an adult, and thereafter the child shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the other court as if the child were an adult.”
Sets forth the statutory framework for waiving juvenile court jurisdiction under the amended 1967 statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGagliano, who was fourteen years or older, was brought into Bay County Juvenile Court as a delinquent child charged with conduct that would constitute…
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 Waiver Of Juvenile Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal John Joseph Gagliano contests an order of the Juvenile Court of Bay County relinquishing jurisdiction in the cause and certifying the charges lodged against him to the Circuit Court to be dealt with as if he were an adult.
Appellant states the points on appeal as: Did the order appealed meet with the essential requirements of the law? and Was the order supported by the evidence?
In relinquishing jurisdiction and transferring a cause to the Circuit Court, the Juvenile Court should proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 39.02(6) (a), Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., which provides :
“If the judge deems that any child brought into juvenile court as a delinquent child, who is fourteen (14) years of age or older, and who, if an adult, would be charged with a violation of Florida law constituting a felony, should be transferred to the court which would have jurisdiction of the child if the child were an adult, the judge may, after hearing, enter an order waiving jurisdiction and certifying the case to the court which would have jurisdiction of the child if the child were an adult, and thereafter the child shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the other court as if the child were an adult. Jurisdiction shall not be waived until a hearing is held in the juvenile court pertaining to waiver of jurisdiction and the judge shall, by written order, determine ,that it is in the best interest of the public that jurisdiction be waived. When this finding is based upon social histories, or psychological or phy-chiatric reports, the child, his parents, guardian or counsel shall have the right *160to examine these reports and to question the parties responsible for them at a hearing in the juvenile court.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Judge of the Juvenile Court in the instant cause prior to waiving jurisdiction held an extensive hearing in which testimony was adduced in the presence of the Court, and upon conclusion of the hearing entered the controverted order. As stated above, appellant contends that the evidence adduced before the Judge cannot, viewed in any light, support the order entered. We do not agree.
However, we do hold that the order appealed does not meet the essential requirements of the law. Prior to 1967 the statute simply required that the Juvenile Judge enter, an order waiving jurisdiction and certifying the case to the court which would have jurisdiction.1 The contents of the instant order apparently track the statutory provision in force prior to the amendment of same in 1967, when the legislature made a material change by providing that the judge determine that it is in the best interest of the public that jurisdiction be waived, and the amended statute apparently contemplates that the judge make specific findings pertaining thereto. See B. P. W. v. State.2
It is our view that there is an adequate transcript of testimony from which ■ the Juvenile Judge may make his findings in rendering an order complying with the present statutory provisions, and another evidentiary hearing is not required. This cause is remanded to the Juvenile Judge for the purpose of entering an appropriate written order setting forth his findings that it is in the best interest of the public that jurisdiction be waived and certifying the case to the Circuit Court.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…DCA 1980). DISMISSED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See O. A. H. v. State, 332 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); R. W. v. State, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); D. A. B. v. State, 329 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).…
-
Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…raph (e)”5 that recommended placement of Kazakoff in the adult system, was more than sufficient for it to make findings as to the omitted factors, as well as to support a transfer of Kazakoff for adult prosecution. Spencer. Accord Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). Accordingly, we affirm Kazakoffs convictions but reverse his sentences. We remand this case to the trial court with specific directions to consider the criteria of section 39.052(2)(c)6. and 7. based on the record of the origin…
-
Spencer v. State, 332 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…nile court judge for the preparation of an order setting forth the reasons for finding (if he should so find) that there are no reasonable prospects for the rehabilitation of appellant Spencer as a juvenile. See Gagliano v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1970, 234 So. 2d 159. IT IS SO ORDERED. McCORD and RAWLS, JJ., concur. . By contrast, F.S. (1975) § 39.09(2) (e) which took effect July 1, 1975, now provides that the juvenile court must only set forth in writing its reasons for the transfer.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of B. P. W. v. State, 214 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)