In the Interest of C.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of C.D. v. State

624 So. 2d 867, 1993 WL 405182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

DocketNo. 93-680

StatusPublished

This text of 624 So. 2d 867 (In the Interest of C.D. 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 the Interest of C.D. v. State, 624 So. 2d 867, 1993 WL 405182 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a petition for delinquency, C.D. was charged with unlawful escape from Duval House, a halfway house, as defined in section 39.01(25), Florida Statutes (1989). The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the escape charge. We reverse.

[868]*868In D.P. v. State, 597 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), 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 DCA1993), 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ruled there was no basis in law for treating the decision in D.P. as having the legal effect of reviving the former repealed statute.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 case.

Accordingly, based upon the state’s concession of error, and this court’s decision in R.A.H., C.D.’s determination of guilt of escape is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the escape charge.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, 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, C.D. was charged with unlawful escape from Duval House, a halfway house, as defined in section 39.01(25), Florida Statutes (1989). The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the escape charge. We reverse.

[868]*868In D.P. v. State, 597 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), 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 DCA1993), 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 case.

Accordingly, based upon the state’s concession of error, and this court’s decision in R.A.H., C.D.’s determination of guilt of escape is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the escape charge.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 So. 2d 867, 1993 WL 405182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cd-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack