TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. DI

State v. DI, 474 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 21, 1985
Docket
No. 84-2642
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
474 So. 2d 40810 Fla. L. Weekly 2010

Opinion — Per Curiam

474 So.2d 408 (1985)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,

v.

In the Interest of D.I., Appellee.

No. 84-2642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

August 21, 1985.

*409 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marlyn J. Altman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jon H. Gutmacher, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order dismissing a petition for adjudication of delinquency. We reverse on the authority of State v. Garofalo, 453 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

The state filed a petition for adjudication of delinquency which charged the juvenile with petty theft from a Winn Dixie store. After realizing that the petition listed the wrong victim, the state re-filed the petition, this time correctly listing the victim as Shopper's Drug Mart. Under section 39.05(6), Florida Statutes (1983), the state has forty-five days (from custody) within which it must file a delinquency petition. Whereas the initial defective petition was filed within that time period, the second petition was filed after expiration of the forty-five day period. Consequently, the lower court dismissed the petition.

In Garofalo, supra, we held that the substitution of the name of the true victim in a second information neither substantially altered the first information nor hampered the defendant's ability to prepare a competent defense. Thus we concluded that the relevant statutory limitation period was tolled by the filing of the original charge. Garofalo, 453 So.2d at 906 . See also D.C.W. v. State, 445 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1984); Rubin v. State, 390 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1980).

In the case sub judice, although defective, the initial petition nevertheless put the juvenile on notice of the offense for which he was being charged. Consequently, he was able to prepare a competent defense. Moreover, we find that the second petition did not substantially alter the charge.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Garofalo, 453 So. 2d 905 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) 22
Rubin v. State, 390 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1980) 44
D.C.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1984) 14
State v. In the Interest of D.I., 474 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list