R.A.C., JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
R.A.C. appeals adjudications of delinquency, raising double jeopardy concerns. The court found a jurisdictional bar rather than a double jeopardy violation: the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing after entering an order dismissing the petitions, as there was no evidence the petitions were refiled.
The court reversed the adjudications and remanded with directions that R.A.C. be discharged in all three cases. Although no double jeopardy violation occurred because jeopardy had not attached at the September 16 hearing, there was a jurisdictional bar preventing the October 28 adjudicatory hearing because the trial court had dismissed the petitions with no evidence of refiling.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over a case when it enters an order dismissing the petitions, absent evidence that the petitions were refiled.
[2] Jeopardy does not attach in a nonjury trial until the court begins to hear evidence upon which it can base a determination of guilt or innocence.
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“Jeopardy does not attach in a nonjury trial until the court begins to hear evidence upon which it can base a determination of guilt or innocence of the charged offense.”
Establishes the standard for when jeopardy attaches in nonjury trials, citing Serfass v. United States.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.A.C. had an adjudicatory hearing scheduled for September 16, 1997. The State requested the court hear a motion to suppress before the adjudicatory h…
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 Attachment Of Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
R.A.C. appeals his adjudications of delinquency in case nos. 97-3985, 97-3986, and 97-3988. He contends that his double jeopardy rights were violated by the adjudications, but we have a found a jurisdictional problem with them.
At the beginning of R.A.C.’s adjudicatory hearing in these cases on September 16, 1997, after the witnesses were sworn, the State noted that R.A.C. had filed a motion to suppress.
The State asserted that it was ready to proceed on the motion and asked that it be handled immediately prior to the adjudicatory hearing.
The court agreed to do so. After hearing testimony, the court orally granted the motion to suppress. Defense counsel then moved to dismiss the petitions if the State could not proceed in light of the granting of the motion to suppress. The State said it was not ready to proceed, and the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. An order was never entered memorializing the trial court’s oral rulings.
Nevertheless, on September 22, 1997, an order was entered denying the motion to suppress and setting aside the oral order of dismissal.
However, on September 25, 1997, the trial court entered an order dismissing the petitions in all three cases. Despite this dismissal, an adjudicatory hearing was held on October 28, 1997.
The trial court ultimately found R.A.C. delinquent in case nos. 97-8985 and 97-8988 and not guilty in case no. 97-3986.
These facts reveal that although there was not a double jeopardy prohibition against the ultimate adjudication of R.A.C. on the three petitions, there was a jurisdictional bar. Jeopardy does not attach in a nonjury trial until the court begins to hear evidence upon which it can base a determination of guilt or innocence of the charged offense. See Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975). Here, although the September 16 hearing was apparently scheduled to be a full-blown adjudicatory hearing, the State requested that the trial court first hear the motion to suppress, which motion was granted.
Thus, evidence regarding R.A.C.’s guilt or innocence was not heard at that time.
However, by the time such evidence was heard, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over these cases because it had entered an order dismissing the three petitions, and there is no evidence in the record that the petitions were refiled.
Accordingly, we reverse the orders of adjudication in case nos. 97-3985, 97-3986, and 97-3988 and remand with directions that R.A.C. be discharged in those cases.
BLUE, A.C.J., and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.B.S. v. State, 851 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ubstantial violation of his community control. The defense did not object to the court’s ruling on grounds that the charge had previously been dismissed. In a nonjury trial, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence. R.A.C. v. State, 736 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Here, after the court heard all the evidence, it dismissed the felony battery charge without reserving any issue for later consideration. Jeopardy had already attached when the court dismissed the charge, and therefore, retractio…
-
State v. M.C., 223 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…are implicated.” (citing State v. Livingston, 681 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996))); W.B.S. v. State, 851 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“In a nonjury trial, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence.” (citing R.A.C. v. State, 736 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))). This case is dismissed. SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.…
-
Z.C.B. v. State, 40 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…cence was received. On appeal, Z.C.B. argues that the trial court erred in adjudicating him delinquent after the court previously had dismissed the petition with prejudice. We disagree, however, because jeopardy never attached. In R.A.C. v. State, 736 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which ultimately was decided on a jurisdictional issue, this court defined when jeopardy attaches. In that case, on the day of R.A.C.’s adjudicatory hearing, the witnesses were sworn and the State advised the trial court that R.A…
Authorities Cited
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1975)