Fitzpatrick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fitzpatrick v. State

430 So. 2d 472, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22280

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1982

DocketNo. 80-1148

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 430 So. 2d 472 (Fitzpatrick 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

Fitzpatrick v. State, 430 So. 2d 472, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22280 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to King v. State, 425 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Appellant, aged 15 at the time of the alleged crime, was indicted for unarmed robbery and aggravated assault and tried in adult court. Since the court lacked jurisdiction to try appellant the cause must be reversed. King v. State, supra. If we were to reach the merits reversal would be also required for failure to grant appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the maximum and minimum penalties for the offenses charged (Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1981)); however, reversal would not be required for insufficiency of evidence.

Accordingly, the orders of delinquency and of commitment to the Department of Youth Services are reversed and the cause is remanded to trial court for further proceedings.

Since this court in King v. State certified to the Supreme Court a question of great public importance (and the Court has apparently accepted jurisdiction of the cause in its Case No. 60,857), we deem it appropriate to certify to the Court the following question of great public importance, which is related to the one posed in King:

DOES AN INDICTMENT FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVE THE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION TO TRY A MINOR WHO IS BELOW THE AGE OF 16 YEARS?

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.

Decision quashed, Fla., 430 So.2d 444.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to King v. State, 425 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Appellant, aged 15 at the time of the alleged crime, was indicted for unarmed robbery and aggravated assault and tried in adult court. Since the court lacked jurisdiction to try appellant the cause must be reversed. King v. State, supra. If we were to reach the merits reversal would be also required for failure to grant appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the maximum and minimum penalties for the offenses charged (Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1981)); however, reversal would not be required for insufficiency of evidence.

Accordingly, the orders of delinquency and of commitment to the Department of Youth Services are reversed and the cause is remanded to trial court for further proceedings.

Since this court in King v. State certified to the Supreme Court a question of great public importance (and the Court has apparently accepted jurisdiction of the cause in its Case No. 60,857), we deem it appropriate to certify to the Court the following question of great public importance, which is related to the one posed in King:

DOES AN INDICTMENT FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVE THE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION TO TRY A MINOR WHO IS BELOW THE AGE OF 16 YEARS?

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.

Decision quashed, Fla., 430 So.2d 444.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 So. 2d 472, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack