State v. M.G.
Decision Date | 14 March 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-251,88-251 |
Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 683,550 So.2d 1122 |
Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 683 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. M.G., a juvenile, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
M.G. seeks dismissal of the state's appeal of an order suppressing evidence in a juvenile proceeding. The order appealed is a non-final order, e.g., State v. Palmore, 495 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1986); State v. Campanponi, 424 So.2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988), which the district courts of appeal may review by interlocutory appeal as provided by rules adopted by the supreme court. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(b)(1); see R.J.B. v. State, 408 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1982); State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972). M.G. contends that the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not authorize state appeals from non-final orders in juvenile proceedings. The state argues that section 39.145(1), Florida Statutes (1987), which grants the state the right to appeal orders suppressing evidence, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(B), which permits state appeals from orders "suppressing before trial confessions, admissions or evidence obtained by search or seizure," provide authority for the state's appeal.
Although juvenile matters are criminal in nature, they are separate proceedings with goals which differ from those established in criminal matters. State v. C.C., 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985). The goal of the Florida Juvenile Justice Act is rehabilitation rather than retribution. See § 39.001(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). The Act's procedures expedite the disposition of charges. State v. C.C., 476 So.2d at 146. Although the legislature's objective was the prompt resolution of juvenile matters, the legislature countenanced a limited delay when it enacted section 39.145(1), Florida Statutes (1987), permitting the state to appeal "a preadjudicatory hearing order ... suppressing a confession or admission made by a juvenile respondent." However, the Florida Supreme Court has held that State v. Smith, 260 So.2d at 491. Because the supreme court has not promulgated a rule permitting the state to appeal interlocutory suppression orders in juvenile proceedings, section 39.145(1), by itself, is an ineffective vehicle to sustain the state's appeal.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 does not apply to juvenile cases. "Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c) concerns only appeals from orders in 'criminal cases'.... 'criminal' cases do not include juvenile proceedings." State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring), aff'd, 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985). Cf. State v. Boatman, 329 So.2d 309, 312 (Fla.1976) () . But cf. R.J.B., 408 So.2d at 1048 ( ). Thus, the state has no right to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in a juvenile proceeding.
Alternatively, the state proposes that we treat its notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c). We approve that recommendation. In State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988), the supreme court held that when rule 9.140 does not provide the state a right to appeal a pretrial evidentiary order, and thereby impairs the state's ability to prosecute, the district courts of appeal may entertain the state's petition for writ of certiorari. See State v. Brea, 530 So.2d 924 (Fla.1988). The court noted that without this avenue of review, the state would be unable to correct an erroneous and highly prejudicial ruling. Pettis. In accordance with the rationale set forth in Pettis, we hold that sound policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Simmons
...1st DCA 1990); State v. Weir, 569 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Sawyer, 561 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla.1989).It is all the more obvious that we express no opinion about the merits of a compulsor......
-
State v. J.A.
...A.N. v. State, 666 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Certiorari is the only relief the State may seek in this case. State v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla.1989). We note that Proposed Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.145(c)(1)(B), if adopted, would p......
-
State v. Stevens, 89-2819
...Sponenberg v. Harold S. Strasser, M.D., P.A., 504 So.2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).2 Compare the facts at bar with those in State v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla.1989), in which the Third District permitted the state to seek review of an order suppressin......
-
State v. J.Y.
...made at the trial level; we treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and deny the petition. See State v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122, 1123-24 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla.1989); see also State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988) (modifying State v. C.C., 476 S......