IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., A CHILD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the state filed its petition within the statutory time limit, as the 45-day period began when the appellant was taken into custody for the specific charge, not when he surrendered for unrelated charges.
Appellant voluntarily surrendered to police for three burglaries and was arrested for two. The state filed a probable cause affidavit for the third, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DELL, Judge.
On September 15, 1988, appellant, a suspect in three burglaries all committed on the same date, voluntarily surrendered himself to the police. The police arrested him and placed him in custody for the two unrelated burglaries but did not arrest him for the attempted burglary charge which is the subject of this appeal. On February 1, 1989, the state filed an official probable cause affidavit which reflected February 1, 1989 as the date of the arrest on the instant charge and on March 3, 1989, filed a petition for adjudication of appellant.
Appellant moved to dismiss the petition based upon section 39.05(6), Florida Statutes (1987). Section 39.05(6) provides:
On motions by or in behalf of a child, a petition alleging delinquency shall be dismissed with prejudice if it was not filed within 45 days from the date the child was taken into custody.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss because the state failed to strictly comply with section 39.05(6). He argues that since he voluntarily surrendered himself on all three charges, the time for filing the attempted burglary charge began to run on September 15, 1988. We disagree.
The fact that the state could have “taken appellant into custody” on the instant charges as early as September 16, 1988, does not violate section 39.05(6). Appellant was not arrested nor was he held in custody on the instant charge until February 1, 1989 and the state filed its petition for adjudication on March 3, 1989, well within the statutory time limit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. C.J.A., 629 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…immediately after his confession. He was not arrested on the criminal mischief charge until the affidavit and petition were filed and was, therefore, not placed into custody for purposes of the statute at the time he was interviewed. S.V. v. State, 560 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The petition was, accordingly, filed within the forty-five day period required by the statute, and the trial court erred by dismissing it. We, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. Revers…
-
M.H. v. State, 637 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…isposition as authorized by law. The term “physical control” referred to in section 39.01(51) does not include police encounters or temporary investigatory detentions. State v. F.T.H., 579 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In In the Interest of S.U, 560 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we held that the 45 day time limit for filing a delinquency petition does not begin to run on the date that a juvenile surrenders to the police, but on the date the juvenile is actually arrested. The essential facts of thi…
-
R.F. v. State, 798 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…n in response to the officer’s request that he appear there to be “arrested and processed.” While there, appellant was issued a notice to appear and formally “processed and charged.” Shortly thereafter, he was released to his mother. Cf. In re S.V., 560 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(juvenile who voluntarily surrendered himself to the police was arrested and placed in custody for two unrelated burglaries but was not arrested for the attempted burglary charge which he sought to have dismissed on “speedy file”…