Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

In re A.B.569 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) · 4D90-1549

Court
4th DCA
Decided
1990-11-28
On CourtListener
STONE, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur because the constitutionality issue has already been resolved by In the Interest of D.D. However, I do not agree with the decision in that case. In my judgment, prior arrest criteria can be used, by the court or the department, in determining whether an adjudicated delinquent juvenile should be treated as a serious offender and such use does not violate due process. I would not have construed the portion of Florida Statutes Chapter 39 in question as necessarily governed by State v. Potts, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988).


PER CURIAM.

The state concedes that appellant’s sentence should be reversed based on In the Interest of D.D., 564 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), where we held the serious ha*1389bitual offender section of Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violates a juvenile’s due process rights.

Accordingly, the appellant’s sentence is reversed. We remand for resentencing.

WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.