J.A. v. State
779 So. 2d 390, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7823
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 23, 2000·No. No. 2D97-1551·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
J.A. appeals the trial court’s adjudications of delinquency for grand theft and for violating Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance. See Tampa, Fla., Code § 14-26(c) (1996). We affirm the adjudication of delinquency for grand theft without discussion. We reject J.A.’s contention that the ordinance is unconstitutional and affirm under the authority of J.P. v. State, 775 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and State v. T.M., 761 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We again certify the following questions of great public importance:
WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF [391]*391A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J.A. v. State, 779 So. 2d 390, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7823 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).
779 So. 2d 390 (J.A. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
J.A. v. State
832 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
JA v. State
788 So. 2d 953 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)