EDDIE JOE RICE, 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.
Eddie Joe Rice appeals his conviction for assault with intent to commit second-degree murder, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it failed to comply with mandatory procedures for waiving juvenile jurisdiction. The appellate court vacated the conviction, holding that the trial court never properly obtained jurisdiction over the case.
The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Rice because it failed to follow mandatory provisions requiring a hearing and a statement that waiver was in the public's best interest, and therefore the judgment and sentence must be vacated.
[1] A juvenile court must hold a hearing and state that it is in the best interest of the public to waive juvenile jurisdiction before certifying a case for trial as if the c…
[2] A criminal court lacks jurisdiction to try a juvenile as an adult if the juvenile court failed to follow mandatory provisions for waiving jurisdiction.
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“The fallacy of the State's position is that the appellant was never legally under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court as an adult because of the failure of the trial court to follow the mandatory provisions of R.J.P. 8.100(c) and R.J.P. 8.-110(b).”
This establishes the core holding that jurisdictional defects from failure to follow mandatory procedural rules cannot be cured.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRice was charged with assault with intent to commit first-degree murder on March 8, 1973. On March 19, 1973, the State requested waiver of juvenile ju…
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 Criminal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence to five years in prison for the crime of assault with intent to commit second degree murder. The facts of this case as they appear from the record are somewhat confusing but as we glean them the following circumstances led up to the judgment and sentence appealed.
On March 8, 1973, an information was filed charging appellant with assault with intent to commit first degree murder. On March 19, 1973, the State filed a petition under R.J.P. 8.100(c) requesting the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court to waive jurisdiction and certify the case for trial as if the child were an adult. The next day the court entered its order granting such petition without holding a hearing as provided for under Rule 8.110(b) and without stating in its order that it is in the best interest of the public that juvenile jurisdiction be waived.
On March 22, 1973, a petition was filed in the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court charging the assault with intent to commit first degree murder as the basis for an adjudication of delinquency. The record discloses no disposition of this petition. The record next discloses that appellant entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court as an adult on April 2, 1973. On April 19, 1973, appellant appeared in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to assault with intent to commit second degree murder with the understanding that he would be referred to the Division of Youth Services. The court then adjudged appellant a delinquent minor and committed him to the custody of the Division of Youth Services until he was 21 or discharged by the Division. Adjudication of guilt of the assault with intent to commit second degree murder charge was withheld and the court retained jurisdiction.
On September 21, 1973, the State filed a motion to vacate the order adjudging appellant a delinquent minor and committing him to the custody of the Division of Youth Services on the ground that appellant had escaped the custody of Youth Services. On October 11, 1973, the court granted the motion to vacate, adjudged appellant guilty of assault with intent to commit second degree murder, and ordered a PS I. Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea which was denied on December 31, 1973, and at the same time the court again adjudged appellant guilty of assault with intent to commit second degree murder and sentenced him to five years in prison. This is the judgment and sentence appealed herein.
The State contends that the trial court was authorized to proceed in the manner outlined above under authority of Fla.Stat. § 959.115(5) (b). The fallacy of the State’s position is that the appellant was never legally under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court as an adult because of the failure of the trial court to follow the mandatory provisions of R.J.P. 8.100(c) and R.J.P. 8.-110(b).
The Criminal Division of the Circuit Court, never having jurisdiction of the appellant, was without authority to enter the judgment and sentence appealed.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence is set aside and vacated.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., 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)…y matters which may be appealed and that subsection (b)(1) is intended to supersede all other rules of practice and procedure. The order from which the instant appeal is taken is not within those enumerated above. Appellant relies on Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as establishing the order as a final appealable order. In Rice, however, the court merely held that the failure of the juvenile court to follow mandatory provisions of the rules of juvenile procedure in certifying defendant’s cas…
-
Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…n its entirety, reflects the trial court properly considered and evaluated all of the other criteria. See W.B. v. State, 313 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1975); Leonard v. State, 522 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). . We do likewise with regard to Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), which was the [*600] underpinning for the holding in G.D.W. 395 So. 2d at 639 n. 3. We leave undisturbed, however, that aspect of Rice that holds that an adult court does not legally obtain jurisdiction over a juvenile when the j…
-
G. D. W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…ogether with the reasons for the imposition of adult penalties. See also Stallins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Murray v. State, 382 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). .Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), held that absent a proper transfer from the juvenile to the adult division, the court was without authority to impose adult sanctions. . Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.150(b) and 8.160(c).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence