Title: Lisak v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

433 So. 2d 487 (1983)
Angelo LISAK, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 61830.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 27, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1983.
Peter M. de Manio and Teresa H. Harrison of the Law Offices of Peter M. de Manio, P.A., Sarasota, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
McDONALD, Justice.
We have accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Lisak, 409 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), because it conflicts with McCarver v. State, 379 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We approve Lisak and in doing so disapprove McCarver.
The facts are fully recited in the opinion of the district court:
409 So. 2d  at 1150.
The question to be resolved is whether a minor's plea of guilty to a petition for delinquency predicated on a capital or life sentence offense and made within twenty-one days of the arrest of the minor bars prosecution of the minor as an adult on the capital offense. In answering this question in the negative we adopt additional portions of the second district opinion in this cause:
409 So. 2d  at 1150-52.
In Tilghman v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 942, 76 S. Ct. 317, 100 L. Ed. 821 (1956), we said:
Id. at 137. In Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977), we held that a trial judge improperly acquitted a defendant following a nolo contendere plea because the trial judge had no authority to enter a judgment of not guilty on a nolo contendere plea and that his action in doing so was a nullity. We further held that double jeopardy did not bar his prosecution. In State v. Cox, 399 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), approved, 412 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1982), the court held that a trial judge could not accept a plea to a lesser degree crime without the consent of the state, that his actions were therefore a nullity, and that jeopardy did not attach to prosecution for the higher offense.
The legislature's acts determine whether a person can be treated as a juvenile or not. We construe sections 39.06(7) and 39.02(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), to prohibit a plea of guilty, as a juvenile delinquent act, within twenty-one days of the minor's arrest for a capital offense unless agreed to by the state. The plea here was a nullity. This being true, jeopardy did not attach, and Lisak can properly be tried as an adult.
The decision and opinion of the district court are approved.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.
BOYD, Justice, dissenting.
The majority fails to recognize that petitioner has been twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. I therefore dissent. I would quash the decision of the district court of appeal and approve the decision in McCarver v. State, 379 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), which is much better supported by logic and by precedent.
*490 The provision in section 39.02(1), Florida Statutes (1979), vesting exclusive original jurisdiction over juveniles alleged to be delinquent in the circuit court, has reference to the completely separate jurisdictional division of that court for juvenile proceedings. See Robidoux v. Coker, 383 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1980); State v. Robinson, 336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1977). This juvenile court jurisdiction attaches to the juvenile when the summons is served or the child is taken into custody. § 39.06(7), Fla. Stat. (1979). The juvenile court's jurisdiction of the child continues thereafter unless and until such jurisdiction is divested pursuant to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. One of the four ways the juvenile court may be divested of jurisdiction is provided for by section 39.02(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1979). See State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980); Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1975). Section 39.02(5)(c) provides:
The statutory language clearly provides that unless and until an indictment is returned, the juvenile is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the court.
The state proceeded against petitioner by filing a petition charging him with an act of delinquency. The cause proceeded and went before the court for a hearing. At the hearing, petitioner entered a plea admitting the allegations of the petition. The court then made an inquiry and received evidence relating to the factual basis for the plea. The Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure designate a hearing at which a plea is entered as an adjudicatory hearing. Fla.Rule Juv.Pro. 8.190(a). Even though adjudication of delinquency was withheld and disposition continued until a later date, I conclude that the hearing at which petitioner entered his plea of admission to the petition was an adjudicatory hearing within the meaning of section 39.02(5)(c). Since the 21-day period had not elapsed and the state had not filed a notice of lack of intent to seek an indictment, the court disregarded the statute and erred in holding the adjudicatory hearing. But this is not the same as saying that the court lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearing.
The constitutional protection against double jeopardy takes cognizance of proceedings for determination of juvenile delinquency. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S. Ct. 1779, 44 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1975). When a juvenile charged with delinquency appears before the court for an adjudicatory hearing and enters a plea and the court hears evidence on the charge, jeopardy has attached. Breed v. Jones; Smith v. State, 316 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1975). Therefore in this case the trial court was correct to dismiss the subsequently filed indictment.
The majority follows the district court's reasoning which attempts to solve the double jeopardy problem through reliance on the rule that in order for jeopardy to attach, the court must have jurisdiction. Properly understood, however, this rule does not provide the majority with the sound basis needed for its decision. In State v. Meagher, 323 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), the same waiting-period provision in section 39.02(5)(c), which at the time *491 provided fourteen days, was in question. The juveniles there were indicted after the fourteen-day period had elapsed and argued that the state could not indict them after the expiration of the waiting period. The court held that even after the fourteen days elapsed, the grand jury could still indict the juveniles, "if jeopardy had not attached." 323 So. 2d  at 28. Since no adjudicatory actions were taken by the juvenile court, it was held that there was no placing in jeopardy and the state was allowed to prosecute under the indictment. The Meagher decision did not deal with the situation of juvenile court action prior to the expiration of the waiting period, but did recognize the importance of the fact that jeopardy had not attached when the indictments were returned.
Jurisdiction is the lawfully existing power of a court to hear and determine a cause. State v. King, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926). Jurisdiction necessarily embraces the power to determine a cause erroneously. State ex rel. Reynolds Construction Co. v. Hendry, 37 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1948). It may be true that the trial court erroneously disregarded or misinterpreted the legislature's clear directive that no adjudicatory hearing be held within twenty-one days. But this error did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
McCarver v. State, 379 So. 2d 979, 981-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Until removed pursuant to one of the statutory provisions, the jurisdiction of the juvenile division continues once it has attached. I agree with the McCarver court that there can be no hiatus in jurisdiction of a pending court proceeding.
Furthermore, I believe that here the state waived the 21-day waiting period provision by acquiescence. Although there was no written consent by the state attorney as provided for by section 39.02(5)(c), the assistant state attorney who represented the state raised no objection when the plea was tendered and the court began to take evidence. Thus the state should be estopped from later denying that the court had jurisdiction and from invoking the 21-day statutory waiting period.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
[1]  In view of our holding, we do not decide whether the trial court actually accepted appellee's tendered plea or if such an acceptance would otherwise have been proper under the circumstances.