THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
OSSIE WHITTER, 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.
The State appeals an order granting a new trial based on the trial court's finding that the defendant's parent was not properly notified of trial proceedings as required by Florida statute. The court reverses, holding that the parent's presence at arraignment and trial sessions provided actual knowledge of the charges, satisfying the statutory requirement.
The court reversed the order granting a new trial, holding that the statutory notice requirement is not mandatory when the parent has actual notice of the charges against the minor prior to trial and reasonable opportunity for consultation. The defendant's father's attendance at the arraignment and trial sessions provided sufficient actual knowledge to invoke the exception.
[1] Failure to provide statutory notice to a parent of a minor's trial renders a judgment of conviction and sentence void, unless the parent had actual notice and a reasonabl…
[2] A parent's attendance at a minor's arraignment and trial sessions constitutes actual notice of the charges against the minor.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Florida courts have frequently held that failure to comply with this statutory requirement renders void any judgment of conviction and sentence.”
Establishes the general rule that violation of the parent notification statute is fatal to conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOssie Whitter, an unmarried male under age 21, was charged with rape. He was arraigned with his father present, counsel was appointed, and a not guilt…
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.
This is an appeal by the state from an order granting a new trial based on § 932.-38, Fla.Stat.1969 (now § 925.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) See § 924.07, Fla.Stat.1969 (now § 924.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. as amended.)
Ossie Whitter, appellant, was an unmarried male under age 21 charged with rape. At an arraignment attended by his father, defense counsel was appointed because of indigency and a plea of not guilty was entered. No date for the trial was then set. In April, 1970 the trial was set for June 29, but was later reset for July 6, 1970. The trial was continued from July 6 to July 7. On July 7, 1970, the date set for trial, appellant’s father was in the courtroom, but the trial was continued because of the prosecutor’s illness. The judge in open court at that time announced that the trial was to be continued to the next Monday. The trial was again postponed for the prosecutor’s illness, and was tried on July 13.
After a jury verdict of guilty, but before sentence had been passed, appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging, inter alia, that the appellant’s parent was not shown to have been notified by the state of the trial, in violation of § 932.38, Fla.Stat., 1969. Testimony was taken as to such motion, and the trial court granted the motion for new trial from which the state appealed.
This statute, § 932.38, Fla.Stat.1969, has been the subject of numerous appellate cases involving its construction and application since it first became law in 1911, Ch. 6221, Acts of 1911. See Holloway v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 248 and cases cited.
Florida courts have frequently held that failure to comply with this statutory requirement renders void any judgment of conviction and sentence. However, the statute is subject to a well-recognized exception that the giving of the prescribed statutory notice is not mandatory where the parent has actual notice of the charges against the minor prior to his trial and has reasonable opportunity for consultation with and advice to the minor. Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554 appears to be the second case considering the predecessor of the present statute and the first to establish the exception.
We express the view that appellant’s father by attending the arraignment and at least one of the trial sessions had sufficient actual knowledge or notice of the offense or charge then lodged against his unmarried, minor child. Therefore, the exception to the instant statute is applicable, and the order granting a new trial is reversed with directions to reinstate the judgment and sentence.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harden v. State, 293 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ints on appeal. The first five points lack substantial merit. See, Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So. 2d 729; Giblin v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 149 So. 2d 561; Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212; State v. Whitter, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 913; Tarpley v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So. 2d 301. The sixth point, raised by appellant Harden, does have merit. His sentence to [*742] 360 days in county jail, followed by four years probation, is not authorized by Fla. Stat. § 948.01(4), F.S.A.; a…
-
Bruce v. State, 278 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in State v. Whitter, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 913.…
Authorities Cited
- Charley Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1924)
- Doll Holloway v. State, 216 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)