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

Mudrack v. State332 So. 2d 32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976) · DCAAA-270

Court
District Court of Appeal
Decided
1976-05-18
Law cited
§ 39.09(2)
On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

The only issue in this case which merits discussion relates to the failure to recite in the order of transfer the reasons for finding that there was no reasonable prospects for rehabilitating appellant prior to his becoming an adult. (See Spencer & Van Horn v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1976, 332 So.2d 30, Opinion filed this date) However, the statute upon which appellant relies, F. S. (1973) 39.09(2) (f) has been amended to require only that:

“When a child is transferred for criminal prosecution, the court shall set forth in writing its reasons for the transfer.” (F.S. (1975) 39.09(2) (e))

The amendment was in effect at the time of the waiver hearing held pursuant to F. S. 39.09(2) and the order of transfer was sufficient.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

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