E. V. R., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a juvenile delinquency adjudication, holding that denying counsel the opportunity to present closing argument violated the juvenile's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and due process. The court concluded that closing argument is an integral part of a juvenile's right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and due process principles established in In re Gault and In re Winship.
Closing argument by counsel is an integral part of a juvenile's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in an adjudicatory hearing. Denial of the opportunity to present closing argument, unless waived, constitutes a denial of due process of law. The adjudication of delinquency must therefore be reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing.
[1] A juvenile's right to effective assistance of counsel includes the opportunity to present a closing argument based on the evidence.
[2] Denying a juvenile the opportunity to present a closing argument, unless waived, violates due process.
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“The juvenile needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it. The child 'requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.'”
Establishes the foundational right to effective assistance of counsel at all stages of juvenile proceedings, supporting the conclusion that closing argument is essential
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.V.R., a juvenile, was charged with larceny of an automobile. A plea of denial was entered by court-appointed counsel. Following an adjudicatory hear…
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 Right To Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an adjudication of delinquency.
A petition for delinquency for larceny of an automobile was filed against juvenile E.V.R. and a plea of denial was entered on his behalf by court appointed counsel. An adjudicatory hearing was held on October 10, 1975 and after presentation of all the evidence, appellant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal. The motion was denied and appellant requested to make a closing argument. The judge denied appellant’s request for the reason that the State waived closing statement and, therefore, appellant was not entitled to argument. Thereupon, the judge entered an adjudication of delinquency and directed that appellant be placed under the supervision of the Florida Division of Youth Services.
Appellant contends that the judge’s refusal to afford his counsel the opportunity to present argument on the evidence and the applicable law deprived him of his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process.
Determination of the issue in the present case is the due process standard in juvenile proceedings as developed by In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) which is one of fundamental fairness with an emphasis on fact finding procedures and the requirement of effective assistance of counsel logically resulting therefrom. MeKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). The extent of counsel’s participation to insure fundamental fairness in an adjudicatory hearing is clearly set out in Gault, supra, 387 U.S. at 36, 87 S.Ct. at 1448:
“. . .A proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. The juvenile needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it. The child ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ ...”
If counsel is to render effective assistance to his juvenile client at every step in the proceedings and to prepare and submit a defense upon ascertaining that a defense exists, then he must be permitted the opportunity to render a closing statement in a final attempt to persuade the court of the juvenile’s innocence. We, therefore, conclude that the presentation of an argument by counsel based upon the evidence introduced at the adjudicatory hearing to be an integral part of a juvenile’s right to effective assistance of counsel and the denial of that right unless waived is a denial of due process of law. See In re F., 11 Cal.3d 249, 113 Cal.Rptr. 170, 520 P. 2d 986 (1974).
Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court, juvenile division, to hold a new adjudicatory hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…tance of counsel in delinquency proceedings. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971); State v. D.H., 340 So. 2d 1163 (Fla.1976); E.V.R. v. State, 342 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Denial of the right to assistance of counsel is fundamental error. See Tyler v. State, 710 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(2) & (3) provide the following: Rule 8.165 Providing Counse…
-
Manrique Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e)(iv). Closing statement should not have been prohibited. See Gunn v. State, 643 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); E.C. v. State, 588 So. 2d 698, 698-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Chalk v. State, 443 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); E.V.R. v. State, 342 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We (1) strike the untimely ground for revocation from the order; (2) affirm the revocation of probation on the remaining grounds; and (3) remand for a new sentencing hearing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded…
-
J.M.S. v. State, 921 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…argument in delinquency proceeding); T.W. v. State, 677 So. 2d 111, 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (accord); T. McD. v. State, 607 So. 2d 513, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (accord); E.C. v. State, 588 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (accord); E.V.R. v. State, 342 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (accord). The State counters that the trial court’s offer six weeks later at the disposition hearing of an opportunity to argue the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal [*816] and closing argument and counsel’s response t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967)
- McKEIVER v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1971)