Case ID: so2d_449/html/0284-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. R.H., a juvenile, Appellee.
    No. 82-2645.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Sept. 27, 1983.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
    Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc), we dismiss the State’s appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing the charges against the juvenile and decline to treat the unauthorized notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We certify that this decision directly conflicts with State v. J.P.W., 433 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and State v. W.A.M., 412 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 1982). We further certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon a question of great public importance, namely:

“Does the State have the authority to file plenary appeals in juvenile cases, and, if not, may this court review by certiorari an order dismissing a petition for delinquency?”

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,

concurring;

Because this court sitting en banc in State v. C.C., 449 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), has, over my dissent, decided these issues adversely to the State, I reluctantly concur in the panel’s decision.