JAMES ALLEN MITCHELL, 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.
Affirmed conviction for marijuana possession; juvenile's guilty plea waived any challenge to hearsay evidence in the transfer hearing, and the trial court properly refused to withdraw the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
A juvenile's guilty plea waives any challenge to hearsay evidence presented in the antecedent transfer hearing, and the trial court did not err in refusing to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A guilty plea waives any challenge to hearsay evidence presented in an antecedent juvenile transfer hearing.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMitchell, a juvenile, was charged with possession of more than five grams of marijuana. He was transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court…
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 Juvenile Transfer To Adult Court cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
An appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on a plea of guilty to possession of more than five grams of marijuana. Appellant, a juvenile, complains of the hearsay character of the evidence adduced against him in the circuit court waiver hearing which resulted in an order transferring appellant for this criminal prosecu tion. Section 39.09(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The State urges that the asserted error was waived by appellant’s failure to appeal from the transfer order within 30 days. Section 39.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975); O’Brien v. Juvenile & Dom. Rel. Court of Dade Co., 161 So. 2d 220 (Fla.3d DCA 1964) (involving a dependency adjudication). But a transfer order such as this contemplates further prosecution and is interlocutory. We need not decide whether the appeal apparently afforded from such an order by Section 39.14(1) is one of which we have jurisdiction, notwithstanding the absence of constitutional and rule provisions granting this court jurisdiction; but we do hold that any error in the antecedent juvenile proceedings may be complained of on proper appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction. Here, however, appellant’s plea of guilty waived reliance on any such error. Williams v. State, 259 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1st DCA 1972). There was no error in the trial court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea on account of the asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, 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)…datory provisions of the rules of juvenile procedure in certifying defendant’s case for trial as an adult rendered the criminal division of the circuit court without jurisdiction to enter a judgment and sentence against defendant. Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), refutes appellant’s position for there the court stated that an order transferring prosecution from the juvenile division contemplates further prosecution and is interlocutory. Appellant further contends that two statutes are a…
-
G.A. v. State, 391 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…er hearings are interlocutory and therefore not reviewable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b) (1978). In Interest of R. J. B., 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We agree with the Fifth DCA that such orders are interlocutory in nature. Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, we think these appeals are governed by Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure (1977) and Sections 39.09(2)(e) and 39.-14(1), Fla.Stats. (1978 Supp.), rather than by Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b). See Malyn v. Atlantic Federal Savi…
-
Eddunio Corraliza v. State, 391 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 259 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- O'Brien v. Juv. & Dom. Relations Court of Dade Cnty., 161 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)