Opinion
No. 2D23-505
03-01-2024
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. A.M.C., Appellee.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Kimberly A. Campbell, Judge.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
LABRIT, Judge.
[1] The State appeals an order that granted A.M.C.’s motion to dismiss a delinquency petition against him. We affirm the order without comment but write to address our jurisdiction, which we must assess in every case. See Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243, 1245 (Fla. 1997); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 1.5 (2018 ed.).
[2] This appeal is before us pursuant to section 985.534(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2023), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.145(c)(1)(A). Both permit the State to appeal an order dismissing a petition for delinquency. See § 985.534(1)(b)1; Fla. R. App. P. 9.145(c)(1)(A). But the order on review did not dismiss the State’s petition; it simply granted A.M.C.’s motion to dismiss. In the civil context, such an order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In criminal cases, however, other districts have found similar orders appealable. See State v. Den Besten, 374 So. 3d 874, 876 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); State v. Jibom, 135 So. 3d 364, 365 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); State v. Nessim, 587 So. 2d 1843, 1344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc); see also State v. Diamond, 188 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 1966) (holding that an order granting a motion to quash an information, but not actually quashing it, is appealable). We agree with the reasoning of our sister courts and conclude that we have jurisdiction under section 985.543(1)(b)1 and rule 9.145(c)(1)(A) to review the order granting A.M.C.’s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.