A. D. H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A. D. H. v. State

416 So. 2d 906, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 16, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1703

StatusPublished

This text of 416 So. 2d 906 (A. D. H. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. D. H. v. State, 416 So. 2d 906, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20547 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Chief Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, was charged by petition. The sole allegation was grand theft in the second degree. § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1981). The appellant was acquitted of the theft charge at his adjudicatory hearing; however, he was found guilty of obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense. § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1981). We reverse.

Although the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded an “adult” in a criminal trial is not conversely applicable in delinquency cases, State v. D. H., 340 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1976), a juvenile is not. subject to adjudication proceedings absent written notice permitting an adequate time period in which to prepare a defense. In Re: Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Furthermore, in fairly viewing lesser-included offenses, we cannot categorize obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense of grand theft. See In Re: Use of the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Nos. 57,731 and 58,799 (Fla., filed April 16, 1981). Therefore, since grand theft was the sole allegation presented here, the accused could not logically have anticipated, nor prepared for, a charge of obstructing without violence.

To subject the appellant here to delinquency proceedings which could perchance result in his loss of liberty without initially affording him his basic due process right of notice constitutes error, which, in the interest of justice, warrants remedy.

Accordingly, the order adjudicating this appellant delinquent is REVERSED.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OTT, Chief Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, was charged by petition. The sole allegation was grand theft in the second degree. § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1981). The appellant was acquitted of the theft charge at his adjudicatory hearing; however, he was found guilty of obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense. § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1981). We reverse.

Although the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded an “adult” in a criminal trial is not conversely applicable in delinquency cases, State v. D. H., 340 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1976), a juvenile is not. subject to adjudication proceedings absent written notice permitting an adequate time period in which to prepare a defense. In Re: Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Furthermore, in fairly viewing lesser-included offenses, we cannot categorize obstructing without violence as a lesser-included offense of grand theft. See In Re: Use of the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Nos. 57,731 and 58,799 (Fla., filed April 16, 1981). Therefore, since grand theft was the sole allegation presented here, the accused could not logically have anticipated, nor prepared for, a charge of obstructing without violence.

To subject the appellant here to delinquency proceedings which could perchance result in his loss of liberty without initially affording him his basic due process right of notice constitutes error, which, in the interest of justice, warrants remedy.

Accordingly, the order adjudicating this appellant delinquent is REVERSED.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 So. 2d 906, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-d-h-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack