A. J. A., In re, 70-1151
| Decision Date | 08 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-1151,70-1151 |
| Citation | 248 So.2d 690 |
| Parties | In the Interest of A. J. A., a child. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rene B. Murai, Perrine, and Harold C. Culmer, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant is a sixteen year old male who has been adjudicated delinquent by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in and for Dade County, Florida. He was taken into custody on July 17, 1970, upon a charge of robbery. The facts which subsequently occurred appear uncontroverted and are established by a stipulated statement in the record. Appellant was arrested by officers of the Dade County Public Safety Department sometime between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. on July 17, 1970. The appellant, along with his mother, was taken directly to the public safety department building where they arrived between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m. After waiting for some time at the public safety department building, the mother was informed by an officer that her son was under arrest for robbery. She was instructed to go home and she did. The appellant remained in custody until 1:15 p.m. when an interrogation of the appellant was begun by two officers of the Public Safety Department. The interrogation lasted for approximately two hours. It culminated in the signing by the appellant of a confession to the robbery. In addition, the appellant initialed a form purporting to waive his right to counsel. After the signing of the confession, the appellant was transferred to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court building. He arrived there at approximately 4:00 p.m.
A petition of delinquency was filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on July 20, 1970, and the child was committed to Youth Hall to await his hearing. Counsel for the appellant filed a motion to suppress the confession given by the child to officers of the Public Safety Department upon the ground that the confession had been obtained in violation of F.S. § 39.03(3), F.S.A. which provides in pertinent part:
'The person taking and retaining a child in custody shall notify the parents or legal custodians of the child and the principal of the school in which said child is enrolled at the earliest practicable time, and Shall, without delay for the purpose of investigation or any other purpose, deliver the child, by the most direct practicable route, to the court of the county or district where the child is taken into custody * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The motion was denied and the child was adjudicated delinquent on August 28, 1970. The uncontroverted facts contained in the stipulation establish further that the only testimony tending to prove appellant's presence and participation in the robbery was the confession obtained by the Public Safety officers. At the adjudication hearing, the appellant maintained his innocence and denied the validity of the alleged confession claiming that he was coerced into signing the confession and the waiver of right to counsel.
The sole point urged on appeal is that because appellant's confession was obtained in violation of F.S. § 39.03(3), F.S.A., the confession should not have been admitted at the adjudicatory hearing. We agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. L. J., In Interest of
...an effect so obviously unintended by the legislature. Accord, T. B. v. State, 306 So.2d 183 (Fla.App.2d, 1975). We note In re A.J.A., 248 So.2d 690 (Fla.App.3d, 1971), which read § 39.03, F.S.1971, as denouncing investigative delays after a child's arrest and before his presentation to a ma......
-
Dowst v. State
...effort to so advise his parents, is inadmissible in evidence. See Arnold v. State, 265 So.2d 64 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972); In re: A.J.A., 248 So.2d 690 (Fla.App.3rd, 1971) and Roberts v. State, 285 So.2d 385 The second point urged relates to alleged variances in allegation and proof of ownership ......
-
R. P. C., In Interest of
...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 vi......
-
W. J. N., In Interest of, 76-1513
...he was delivered to the appropriate intake officer of the Division of Youth Services. Appellant relies on In Interest of A. J. A., 248 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) and Roberts v. State, 285 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973). These cases, however, are no longer applicable because they deal with an earlie......