Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/L.G.R. v. State

L.G.R. v. State

485 So. 2d 13, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6839
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 11, 1986·No. No. 85-291·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended petition, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency. The amended petition was filed after the expiration of the forty-five day filing period and merely substituted the correct name of the victim of the alleged offenses; it did not substantially alter the initial petition. Because the initial petition adequately informed defendant of the charges, we hold that the timely filing of the initial petition tolled the statutory filing period. State v. D.I., 474 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see Rubin v. State, 390 So.2d 322 (Fla.1980); State v. Garofalo, 453 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Contra J.H. v. State, 424 So.2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

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

L.G.R. v. State, 485 So. 2d 13, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6839 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

485 So. 2d 13 (L.G.R. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

R.G. v. State
647 So. 2d 282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
M.F. v. State
583 So. 2d 1383 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Interest of B.T. v. State
573 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
BT v. State
573 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
M.F. v. State
563 So. 2d 171 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
State v. T.A.
528 So. 2d 974 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)