Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. C.C., E.V., C.A.Q., A.M.E., and S.E., juveniles, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-03-24
Citations: 449 So. 2d 280
Docket Number: Nos. 81-2564, 82-666, 82-797 and 82-1825
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. C.C., E.V., C.A.Q., A.M.E., and S.E., juveniles, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 449
Pages: 280–282

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. C.C., E.V., C.A.Q., A.M.E., and S.E., juveniles, Appellees.
Nos. 81-2564, 82-666, 82-797 and 82-1825.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 24, 1983.
On Rehearing En Banc Sept. 27, 1983.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marti Rothen-berg and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BASKIN, Judge.
The state's right to appeal is purely statutory. Whidden v. State, 159 Fla. 691, 32 So.2d 577 (1947); State v. Brown, 330 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Because the Florida Juvenile Justice Act, Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1981) contains no provision authorizing an appeal by the state, we grant appellees' motions to dismiss. We expressly disagree with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in State v. W.A.M., 412 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982) insofar as it finds a constitutional right of appeal in the state. Furthermore,, in our view, Article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Constitution of the State of Florida permits interlocutory review only in cases in which appeal may be taken as a matter of right.
Appeals dismissed.
Article V, section 4(b)(1) provides:
(b) JURISDICTION.—
(1) District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.