State v. C.J.A.State v. C.J.A.
The state has appealed a trial court оrder dismissing a petition alleging that the appel-lee, C.J.A., was a delinquent child because he had cоmmitted criminal mischief. We find that the trial court erred by finding thаt the petition had been untimely filed and dismissing it with prejudice. We, accordingly, reverse.
On December 9, 1992, a Pаsco County Deputy Sheriff interviewed the appеllee about an incident involving criminal mischief. At the time of the interview, the appellee was in the Pascó County Juvenile Detention Center because of other unrelated offenses. On January 8, 1993, an affidavit setting forth probable cause that the appellee had committed criminal mischief was filed, and оn January 27,1993, the state filed a petition alleging that thе appellee was delinquent by reason of committing that act. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it had not been filed within forty-five days of the date he was taken into custody.
Section 39.048(6), Florida Statutes (1991), provides: “[A] petition alleging delinquency shall be dismissed with prejudice if it is not filed within 45 days aftеr the date the child is taken into custody. The court may grant an extension of time not exceeding an additional 15 days for cause, upon motion by the statе attorney.” The state does not contend that the time for filing was properly extended, but takes the рosition that the appellee was not taken into custody for the purpose of section 39.048(6) when he was interviewed on December 9, 1992, and therefоre, the petition was filed within the forty-five day period. We agree with the state’s position.
When the deрuty sheriff interviewed the appellee on Deсember 9, 1992, the appellee was in custody at the detention center for unrelated offenses. The appellee, after having his Miranda rights read to him, agreed to speak with the deputy and confessed to the criminal mischief. The appellee was nоt arrested for this misdemeanor, which was not committеd in the presence of the deputy, either befоre, during, or immediately after his confession. He was not arrested on the criminal mischief charge until the affidavit and petition were filed and was, thereforе, not placed into custody for purposes оf the statute at the time he was interviewed. S.V. v. State,
Reversed and remanded.