IN THE INTEREST OF D.D., 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.
A juvenile committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Florida's serious habitual juvenile offender statute appealed on constitutional grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute violated substantive due process by using arrests as criteria for commitment, which impermissibly penalizes a person based on accusation rather than conviction.
The statutes violate substantive due process because they impermissibly penalize a juvenile based on arrests rather than convictions, allowing the state to penalize someone merely for the status of being accused of a crime.
[1] A statute that penalizes an individual based solely on their arrest record violates substantive due process.
[2] Juvenile habitual offender statutes are unconstitutional if their criteria are based merely on arrests.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here.”
The foundational principle from State v. Potts that the court applied to strike down the serious habitual juvenile offender statute as violating substantive due process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a minor, was charged with grand theft, resisting arrest without violence, and petit theft. The appellant pled guilty to the charges. Th…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. We reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.
Appellant, under eighteen, and charged with grand theft, resisting arrest without violence, and petit theft, pled guilty to the charges. Subsequently, the state filed a petition for serious habitual juvenile offender placement to which appellant objected, contesting the constitutionality of the serious juvenile habitual offender statute because its criteria were based merely on arrests. Finding that appellant met the criteria of section 39.01(46), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), the trial court committed him under the terms of the program. This appeal followed.
The dispositive question is whether sections 39.09(5) and 39.01(46), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), violate substantive due process as found in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution. We conclude that they do.
The criteria contained in section 39.01(46) include the juvenile’s prior arrest record. In State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988), the supreme court said:
The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here. We therefore approve and adopt the district court’s opinion in its entirety as our own. Section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1985), is facially unconstitutional to the extent it purports to penalize a person who is under indictment with greater severity than one who is accused of no crime.
(Emphasis added.)
We agree with appellant that Potts applies to the statutes in question. We take note of a similar proscription against consideration of arrests in sentencing guidelines.
Finally, appellant raises reasoned attacks on the statute as violative of procedural due process and as cruel and inhuman punishment; however, we need not address them in light of the foregoing result.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
specially concurring.
I am unable to disagree with the result reached by the majority, but I am apprehensive that what we do here may not be in the best interests of the juvenile defendant. Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1989) provides methods for dealing with juveniles, supposedly for their “moral, emotional, mental and physical welfare.... ” and is intended to shield them from being catapulted into the adult criminal justice system. Section 39.01(46) in particular, seeks to identify serious habitual juvenile offenders in order to provide for their appropriate handling as a juvenile. Its purpose does not appear to be for punitive retribution. As such, I wonder if Potts should apply, though I am unable to say that it does not.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.W.G. v. State, 702 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1997)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review P.W.G. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in In re D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve P.W.G. Petitioner pled guilty to making a destructive device1 by mixing .“The Works” toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil in a plastic bottle. He admitted throwin…1 / 3
-
P.W.G. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…llant has failed to establish that the recommended placement constitutes an infringement upon any right to substantive due process of law. We acknowledge that this conclusion can be read as being at odds with that reached in In the Interest of D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, we believe that the holding in D.D. resulted from a failure to recognize the fundamental differences between the juvenile delinquency and the adult criminal systems. IV. The Recommendation Does Not Violate the Bobby M…
-
In the Interest of M.J., 564 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. We reverse and remand on the authority of In the Interest of D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), which was issued this date. LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florida v. Potts, 488 U.S. 870 (U.S. 1988)
- Ind. Hosp. v. Miller, 488 U.S. 870 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1988)
- THE Florida BAR v. Weisser, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1988)