Summary
In L.G.R., the district court approved an amendment that had been filed after the filing period elapsed, finding, without elaborating on the facts, that the amendment "merely substituted the correct name of the victim," and thereby "did not substantially alter the initial petition."
Summary of this case from M.F. v. StateOpinion
No. 85-291.
March 11, 1986.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Adele Segall Faske, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Finding no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the amended petition, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency. The amended petition was filed after the expiration of the forty-five day filing period and merely substituted the correct name of the victim of the alleged offenses; it did not substantially alter the initial petition. Because the initial petition adequately informed defendant of the charges, we hold that the timely filing of the initial petition tolled the statutory filing period. State v. D.I., 474 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see Rubin v. State, 390 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1980); State v. Garofalo, 453 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Contra J.H. v. State, 424 So.2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Affirmed.