R. W. AND L. P., JUVENILES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in waiving juvenile jurisdiction as the record supported the orders and no reversible error was demonstrated.
Appellee filed petitions for delinquency against appellants for serious crimes. The trial court granted appellee's motions to waive juvenile jurisdict…
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 Rehabilitation Prospects cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, respondents below, appeal orders of the circuit court, juvenile division, waiving its jurisdiction over them pursuant to appellee’s, petitioner below, motions.
On May 1, 1975, appellee filed petitions for delinquency against appellants in the circuit court, juvenile division, charging them with fourteen counts, including the alleged crimes of robbery, display of a firearm during a felony, and assault with intent to commit first degree murder. On the same date, appellee filed motions for orders for the court to waive jurisdiction over appellants and to transfer their cases to the circuit court, criminal division. After a hearing, on May 23, 1975, orders were entered by the court granting appel-lee’s motions. From these orders, appellants appeal.
Appellants contend that the court erred in entering the orders because the evidence presented at the hearing did not establish probable cause to believe that appellants committed the crimes as charged. Appellants further contend the evidence clearly established that reasonable prospects for appellants’ rehabilitation existed. Appel-lee contends to the contrary.
We have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Pursuant to § 39.02, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., the record shows adequate support for the court’s entries of the orders appealed. See W. B. v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So. 2d 711; Davis v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So. 2d 289; Gagliano v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 159; and B. P. W. v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 365. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the orders appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980)…2d DCA 1963). An information containing an inaccuracy or imperfection, which is timely filed within the period of limitations, is also sufficient to toll this statute of limitations. State ex rel. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association v. McClure, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). A subsequently filed information, which contains language indicating that it is a continuation of the same prosecution, timely commenced will not be considered an abandonment of the first information and therefore will not be ba…
-
T. R. v. State, 364 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…mation, but provides that indictments or informations dismissed or set aside because of formal defects toll the statute for three months. We extensively considered the effect of § 775.15(5) in State ex rel. Fla. Petro. Mktrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. McClure, 330 So. 2d 239, 243-244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), as to criminal prosecutions and concluded: “[A] restorative indictment . . . , filed within three months of one timely filed but dismissed, is effective to continue the prosecution . .…
-
In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…l order will not give complete and adequate relief. In Re Adoption of Stinebaker, 382 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th 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).…
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
- Davis v. State, 297 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1974)
- W. B. v. State, 313 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1975)
- In the Interest of B. P. W. v. State, 214 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- In the Interest of John Joseph Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)