IN THE INTEREST OF R. P. C., 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 adjudicated delinquent for attempted larceny appealed the delinquency finding, challenging whether the trial court erred by not dismissing the petition due to late filing of a required written custody report. The court affirmed, holding that the three-day reporting requirement is procedural, not substantive, and absent showing of prejudice, noncompliance does not require reversal.
The three-day written reporting requirement under Section 39.03(2) is a procedural step, not a substantive right, and noncompliance does not require reversal without a showing of prejudice to the juvenile. The juvenile failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the seven-day delay in filing the report.
[1] A petition alleging delinquency must be dismissed with prejudice if not filed within 30 days of the complaint's receipt by the intake office.
[2] The word "shall" in a statute is generally mandatory in nature.
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 requirement of a written report within three days is a procedural step and not a substantive right. Without a showing of prejudice to the juvenile, noncompliance does not require reversal.”
Establishes the key distinction between procedural and substantive requirements that governs the outcome of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.P.C., a juvenile, was taken into custody and found guilty of attempted larceny. The person taking the child into custody was required by statute to …
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 Procedural Vs. Substantive Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Judge.
A juvenile, found guilty of attempted larceny, appeals an adjudication of delinquency. Two points have been raised and considered by the court, but only one, involving Section 39.03(2), Florida Statutes (1975), merits discussion.
The juvenile contends that the trial court erred in not dismissing the delinquency petition against him because the written report required by Section 39.03(2) was not timely filed. The relevant portion of the statute provides:
The person taking the child into custody shall, within 3 days, make a full written report to the appropriate intake officer, stating the facts by reason of which the child was taken into custody. The report shall:
(a) Identify the child, his parents, and the person to whom he was released.
(b) Contain sufficient information' to establish the jurisdiction of the court and to support a finding by the court that the child is delinquent or dependent. (Emphasis supplied.)
The written report in this case was filed seven days after the child was taken into custody. We find no reversible error and affirm.
The requirement of a written report within three days is a procedural step and not a substantive right. Without a showing of prejudice to the juvenile, noncompliance does not require reversal. Compare In the Interest of A. J. A., 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), and Roberts v. State, 285 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973), involving suppression of confessions obtained from juveniles in custody in violation of Section 39.03(3). In this case appellant has shown no prejudice resulting from the untimely filing of the written report.
This portion of Section 39.03(2) is distinguishable from Section 39.05(7), Florida Statutes (1975), which 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 30 days from the date the complaint was referred to the intake office.
The Legislature by Section 39.05(7) granted to every juvenile the right to be discharged from a delinquency petition not filed within thirty days from the date the complaint is referred to the intake office. The right of dismissal under Section 39.05(7) is a substantive right. In the Interest of S. L. M., 336 So. 2d 391 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). No similar right of dismissal is granted in relation to the requirement of Section 39.03(2).
In this case it has not been shown that the juvenile suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the written report with the intake office. No other error having been shown, the adjudication of delinquency is affirmed.1
AFFIRMED.
MAGER, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . We have not overlooked the recent opinion from the First District, In re J. W. H., 345 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA opinion filed May 18, 1977). That case is distinguishable because there the child was prejudiced by the delay in filing the written report as provided in Section 39.03(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of G. L. T., JR. v. State, 366 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1978)…, Fourth District, are approved. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. . In the Interest of G. L. T., Jr. v. State, 352 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); In the Interest of R. P. C. v. State, 352 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . It should be noted that § 39.03, Fla.Stat. (1975), was substantially revised by Ch. 78-414, § 5, Laws of Fla. . It should be made clear that we do not use the terms “substantive” and “procedural” in the context of Art. V, §…
-
In the Interest of G. L. T., Jr. v. State, 352 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of In the Interest of R. P. C., 352 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed June 3, 1977). AFFIRMED. DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.…
-
DeFLIPPO v. Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 364 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…s of Section 39.03(2) requiring a complaint to be filed within three days are not mandatory, we noted that our ruling might be different if prejudice were shown as it was in J. W. H. where speedy trial time was involved. In the Interest of R. C. P., 352 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). I believe prejudice has been shown here since the state has been able to avoid the provisions of Section 39.05(7) by delaying the filing of a complaint with the intake office. In this way the 30 day mandatory filing provisions a…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of J. W. H. J. H. N. v. State, 345 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Roberts v. State, 285 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lorin Lee Furlong v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- In the Interest of A. J. A., 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- In the Interest of S. L. M., 336 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)