in Interest of O.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

in Interest of O.P. v. State

623 So. 2d 849, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9235, 1993 WL 347500

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 1993

DocketNo. 93-636

StatusPublished

This text of 623 So. 2d 849 (in Interest of O.P. 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

in Interest of O.P. v. State, 623 So. 2d 849, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9235, 1993 WL 347500 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a petition for delinquency, O.P. was charged with unlawful escape from Criswell House while in the lawful custody of officers of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the escape charge. We reverse.

In D.P. v. State, 597 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court held unconstitutional and invalid that portion of section 39.061, Florida Statutes, pertaining to escape from residential commitment facilities. Thereafter, in R.A.H. v. State, 614 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the court ruled there was no basis in law for treating the decision in D.P. as having the legal effect of reviving the former repealed statute. The state acknowledges that the ruling in R.A.H. decides the issue in this ease.

Accordingly, based upon the state’s concession of error, and this court’s decision in R.A.H., O.P.’s adjudication of guilt of the [850]*850offense of escape is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the escape charge.

ERVIN, JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a petition for delinquency, O.P. was charged with unlawful escape from Criswell House while in the lawful custody of officers of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the escape charge. We reverse.

In D.P. v. State, 597 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court held unconstitutional and invalid that portion of section 39.061, Florida Statutes, pertaining to escape from residential commitment facilities. Thereafter, in R.A.H. v. State, 614 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the court ruled there was no basis in law for treating the decision in D.P. as having the legal effect of reviving the former repealed statute. The state acknowledges that the ruling in R.A.H. decides the issue in this ease.

Accordingly, based upon the state’s concession of error, and this court’s decision in R.A.H., O.P.’s adjudication of guilt of the [850]*850offense of escape is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the escape charge.

ERVIN, JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 So. 2d 849, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9235, 1993 WL 347500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-interest-of-op-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack