In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State

408 So. 2d 1048, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2322
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 14, 1982
DocketNos. 59887, 59888 and 59968
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 408 So. 2d 1048 (In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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 R. J. B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2322 (Fla. 1982).

Opinions

ALDERMAN, Justice.

We have for review the decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, in In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So.2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); D. A. D. v. State, 389 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); and In the Interest of D. J. P. v. State, 388 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), holding that it was without jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals from the juvenile court’s orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction. This holding expressly and directly conflicts with G. A. v. State, 391 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), wherein the First District held that an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order waiving jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1980). Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

The determinative issue before us is whether the district court erred in dismissing the direct interlocutory appeals from the juvenile waiver orders on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. Since we agree with the Fifth District that it was without jurisdiction to consider these appeals, we do not reach the second issue posed by petitioner R. J. B. as to whether the trial court erred in waiving juvenile jurisdiction of R. J. B. and certifying him as an adult without having held a hearing to determine Competency-

Petitioners, three juveniles, separately appealed orders of the trial court waiving juvenile jurisdiction and certifying them for trial as adults. The Fifth District dismissed the appeals on the basis that these waiver orders were not final orders from which appeal would lie. It reasoned that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)1 governs here and that this rule does not provide for interlocutory appeals of orders of this nature. The district court acknowledged sections 39.09(2)(e)2 and 39.14(1),3 [1050]*1050Florida Statutes (1979), but held that these statutes were ineffective to provide appellate review of waiver orders.

We agree. It is not clear that the legislature intended to create a right of interlocutory appeal from waiver orders. Section 39.09(2)(e) merely provides that a waiver order shall be reviewable pursuant to section 39.14, and section 39.14(1) provides that appeal may be had within the time and manner prescribed by the appellate rules. Even if the legislature had intended to create a right of interlocutory appeal from waiver orders, such enactment would have been void because the Florida Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review. State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).

This Court is vested by the constitution with the sole authority of deciding when appeals may be taken from interlocutory orders. Article V, section 4(b)(1) expressly provides that district courts of appeal “may review interlocutory orders in such eases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.” This Court has not adopted any appellate rule which permits the type of interlocutory appeal sought by petitioners.

Furthermore, we hold that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.220(f) does not create a right to interlocutory appeal. This rule provides:

(f) After a hearing at which a judge enters an order waiving jurisdiction and certifying a child for trial as an adult, adjudicating a child delinquent, dependent, or ungovernable, or a disposition order, he shall forthwith inform the child, his parents or custodians concerning the right of appeal therefrom, including the time allowed by law for taking an appeal.

By this rule, we did not create an immediate right to appeal from the waiver order before the juvenile is transferred into the criminal justice system. Rather, in promulgating this rule, we only intended that a child, his parents, or custodians be informed that there was a right to appeal the waiver order. In the absence of an appellate rule providing for interlocutory appeal, this rule means that the child, his parents, or custodians should be informed of the child’s right to appeal the waiver order in the event there is a final judgment adjudicating guilt or an order granting probation, whether or not guilt has been adjudicated. The First District’s decision in G. A. v. State is disapproved insofar as it holds that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.220(f) creates a right of interlocutory appeal.

We need not discuss the merits of permitting such interlocutory appeals which are alluded to by the First District in G. A. v. State or the merits of not permitting such interlocutory appeals. It is sufficient to say that this Court has not adopted a rule allowing interlocutory appeal of orders of the juvenile court waiving juvenile jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, is approved.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Gaines
770 So. 2d 1221 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
State v. Sowers
763 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Crawford v. Dwoskin
729 So. 2d 520 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. Fedor
714 So. 2d 526 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Health Care Associates, Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Group
701 So. 2d 118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Del Rey
643 So. 2d 1146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Kazakoff v. State
642 So. 2d 596 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Blore v. Fierro
636 So. 2d 1329 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
MIAMI PHYSICAL THERAPY v. Savage
632 So. 2d 114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
In Interest of Dw
616 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
DEPT. OF H & R SERV. v. Honeycutt
609 So. 2d 596 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
State v. Alvarez
600 So. 2d 49 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
State v. M.G.
550 So. 2d 1122 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. CC
476 So. 2d 144 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
State v. GP
429 So. 2d 786 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State v. C.C.
449 So. 2d 280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Jones v. State
423 So. 2d 520 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
State Ex Rel. Alton v. Conkling
421 So. 2d 1108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
In the Interest of R. T.
417 So. 2d 1103 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
In the Interest of A. D.
417 So. 2d 814 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
408 So. 2d 1048, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-r-j-b-v-state-fla-1982.