V. D., In Interest of
| Decision Date | 27 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--113,70--113 |
| Citation | 245 So.2d 273 |
| Parties | In the Interest of V.D., a Child. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, and Charles E. Thomson, Cocoa Beach, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee State of Florida.
This is an appeal from an adjudication in the Juvenile Court for Indian River County, Florida.
This cause was commenced on 24 October 1969 by the filing of petitions alleging that the appellant, a female child age fifteen, is a delinquent within the meaning of the Florida Juvenile Court Statute, F.S. 1969, chapter 39, F.S.A. After the petitions were filed, a summons was issued from the Juvenile Court to the parents of the child. It was served on them on or about the 24th of October, 1969, and required them to attend a hearing before the Juvenile Court on 28 October 1969 and to bring the appellant with them. The summons did not recite the nature of the charge against the minor child.
It appears from the record that just before the hearing on 28 October a full statement of rights was read to the child and her mother. At that time the child and the mother were advised of the nature of the charges against the child. After being advised of their rights the mother and child signed a document entitled 'Refusal of Counsel.' This document in effect waived the right to have an appoited counsel for purposes of the hearing.
Testimony was taken and the trial judge adjudicated the minor a delinquent and ordered her committed for an indefinite period to the Florida State Industrial School for Girls. Thereafter counsel entered the case for the child and filed a petition for a new trial. The petition for new trial was denied and this appeal followed.
Witnesses appearing at the 28 October hearing testified that on one occasion the appellant had improperly displayed a razor blade by flashing it in the face of one of her fellow students at Vero Beach High School in Indian River County and by making a pass with it at the student's leg. On a different occasion, according to some of the testimony, the appellant with a rezor blade cut a lock of hair from the head of another student. The appellant denied both incidents.
The first question presented by appellant is whether or not she and her parents were adequately advised of the charges against her. F.S.1969, section 39.05, F.S.A., provides that a counselor or any other person may file in the juvenile court a petition relating to the alleged delinquency of a child. The statute requires the designation in the petition of the name, age, and residence of the child and the facts which are deemed to constitute the child a delinquent. Under F.S.1969, section 39.05(4), F.S.A., a petition is sufficient if it clearly states in such manner as to apprise prise the parents of the nature of the alleged delinquency the substance of the facts which if true constitute the child a delinquent.
Unfortunately there is an hiatus in the statutory scheme because, although the petition is by statute required to be drawn in a reasonably precise manner, there is no provision for service of the petition on the child or its custodian. F.S.1969, section 39.06(2), F.S.A., does provide that the summons which is served on the child's custodian shall recite 'briefly' the substance of the petition. In the present case the summons served on appellant's mother recited only that the child was allegedly a delinquent within the meaning and intent of the applicable law.
Since there is no provision in the statute which requires that the initiating petition be served upon the minor and its parents, the summons is the only accusatorial document served. It, therefore, must provide adequate notice to the minor and its parents to satisfy the requirements of due process of law. Accordingly, the summons must set forth the alleged misconduct with reasonable particularity and be given sufficiently in advance of the scheduled court hearing to provide a reasonable opportunity for preparation to meet the charges. Application of Gault, 1967, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1446, 18 L.Ed.2d 527.
We have no hesitancy in holding that the summons which was served on the minor's parents in this case neither satisfied the requirements of due process of law nor the requirements of F.S.1969, section 39.06(2), F.S.A. The summons was defective in that it did not specify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charges which the minor and its parents would be called upon to answer at the hearing to which they were summoned. We do not hold, however, that the summons was served an inadequate period of time prior to the scheduled hearing.
The state in its brief argues that the minor child and her parents, even without an adequate notice, had ample knowledge of the nature of the charges which the minor would be called upon to answer at the hearing. We find no support for this conclusion in the record, but even if there were, such knowledge would not satisfy the notice requirement due process imposes on the state.
The second issue presented by the appellant is whether or not she and her parents were adequately informed as to their various procedural rights. The argument of the appellant is that although she and her parents were fully advised on the morning of the hearing as to their procedural rights, such a advice was given her by a court counselor and not by the judge of the Juvenile Court. We fail to see any merit in this contention. We are totally unable to find any requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that would require the Juvenile Judge personally to perform this task when it has adequately been performed by other court personnel.
The next issue is whether or not the appellant's right to immunity from self-incrimination was invaded by several questions asked her by the Juvenile Court Judge during the course of the hearing. The judge asked the appellant whether or not she had made certain statements to a police officer which were inconsistent with testimony given by her during the juvenile court hearing. We are unable to determine from the record whether or not the statements given by appellant to the police officer were made under circumstances that entitled appellant to Miranda warnings; however, because the cause is to be remanded for a new trial, the trial court should determine on remand whether or not at the time the statements to the officer were made the child was under arrest or otherwise significantly deprived of her liberty. If so, the statements made by the child to the officer should not be used as direct evidence or for impeachment, unless it is first determined that the child was accorded the procedural rights specified in Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. See also State v. Galasso, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 326, 329.
The appellant's final contention is that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial. Apparently the appellant assumes that she was entitled to a jury trial in the Juvenile Court, although appellant's brief is far from clear on this. It is our conclusion that no right to a trial by jury exists with respect to a proceeding in the Juvenile Court under the Florida juvenile court statute; therefore, the appellant's contention that she was not advised of such right is without merit.
Based on Article V, Section 12, of the Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People in Interest of T.M., 85SA444
...In the Matter of J.T., 290 A.2d 821 (D.C.App.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 339, 34 L.Ed.2d 252 (1972); In the Interest of V.D., 245 So.2d 273 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 688 (Fla.1971); Robinson v. State, 227 Ga. 140, 179 S.E.2d 248 (1971) (no violation of sixth amendment ......
-
D. J., In Interest of
...Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 672; In re T.A.F., Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 255; In re J.R.H. v. State, Fla.App.1973, 278 So.2d 314; In re D., Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 273; In re E.P., Fla.App.1974, 291 So.2d 238 and In re L.G.T., Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d ...
-
S. W. P. v. State, 76-1596
...219 So.2d 77, 80 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). But see Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.180(a).2 See Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.110(c)(1).3 See In Interest of V. D., 245 So.2d 273 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). ...
-
L. C. L. v. State, 75-87
...of Fla.Stat. § 39.06(2), that a summons be issued to parents in a juvenile court proceeding as being mandatory, and In Re D, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 245 So.2d 273, held that a summons issued by Juvenile Court to a child's parents which did not recite the nature of the charge against the minor wa......