TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

R. W. v. State

R. W. and L. P., juveniles v. The STATE of Florida

R. W. v. State, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 20, 1976
Docket
No. 75-1003
Judges
Haverfield, Hendry, Nathan
Citations
330 So. 2d 2391976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14984

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, respondents below, appeal orders of the circuit court, juvenile division, waiving its jurisdiction over them pursuant to appellee’s, petitioner below, motions.

On May 1, 1975, appellee filed petitions for delinquency against appellants in the circuit court, juvenile division, charging them with fourteen counts, including the alleged crimes of robbery, display of a firearm during a felony, and assault with intent to commit first degree murder.

On the same date, appellee filed motions for orders for the court to waive jurisdiction over appellants and to transfer their cases to the circuit court, criminal division. After a hearing, on May 23, 1975, orders were entered by the court granting appel-lee’s motions. From these orders, appellants appeal.

Appellants contend that the court erred in entering the orders because the evidence presented at the hearing did not establish probable cause to believe that appellants committed the crimes as charged. Appellants further contend the evidence clearly established that reasonable prospects for appellants’ rehabilitation existed. Appel-lee contends to the contrary.

We have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Pursuant to § 39.02, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., the record shows adequate support for the court’s entries of the orders appealed. See W. B. v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So.2d 711 ; Davis v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So.2d 289 ; Gagliano v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 159 ; and B. P. W. v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 365 . Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the orders appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1980: 219802026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Interest of R. J. B. v. State394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
  2. RJB v. State394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Most recent

  1. RJB v. State394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
  2. Interest of R. J. B. v. State394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Davis v. State, 297 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1974) 22
W. B. v. State, 313 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1975) 8
Interest of B. P. W. v. State, 214 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968) 7
In the Interest of Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970) 5

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