Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 925.07 (2025)

Parent or guardian to be notified before trial of minor; service of notice.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

925.07 Parent or guardian to be notified before trial of minor; service of notice.—

(1) When an unmarried minor is charged with an offense before any court in this state, notice of the charge shall be given before trial to the parent or guardian of the minor if the name and address is known. If the name and address is not known, notice shall be given to any friend or relative designated by the minor.

(2) Notice required by this section may be made in the same manner as the service of summons. If the person to be notified is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, notice may be given by registered mail or telegram, and return of the service shall be made in the same manner as the return on a summons.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 6221, 1911; RGS 6028; CGL 8322; s. 172, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 77-119.

Note.—Former s. 932.38.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1971–1983 · leading case: State v. Woods, 400 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Woods, 400 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1981). “38 (present section 925.07), Florida Statutes (1969), was sent to the parents or guardian of the respondent.”

Alexander v. State, 341 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). · cites it 2× “(2) The service of notice required by this section to be given to the parent, or guardian or other person provided herein may be made as the service of summons ad respondendum is made; or in the event such parent, or guardian or other person provided herein may be beyond the…”

Williams v. State, 297 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). · cites it 2× “His primary contention rests upon the fact that he was a minor and that the certified mail notices provided by Fla. Stat. § 925.07 F.S.A. had apparently not themselves been received by his mother, who was a resident of Thomasville, Georgia.”

McIntosh v. State, 274 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). · cites it 2× “In October, the State had attempted service of the notice required by Fla. Stat. § 925.07 (1971), F.S.A., on his parents, but without success.”

Warren v. State, 266 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). · cites it 5× “However, it is our opinion that appellant is entitled to a new trial for the reason that the record fails to show compliance with F.S.A. § 925.07, concerning notification to a parent or guardian of charges placed against a minor child.”

Morris v. State, 422 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “Morris next asserts that his conviction should be vacated because his parents did not receive notice prior to trial pursuant to Section 925.07, Florida Statutes (1973). This point was raised in both of Morris' previous Rule 3.”

McKenzie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). · cites it 4× “The state responded by arguing, with no supporting case law, that the seven-day period should extend speedy trial since the state was prohibited by the court from going forward with arraignment until Section 925.”

Hons v. State, 285 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). · cites it 4× “, now F.S. § 925.07 F.S.A., and they failed to attend the criminal proceedings and assist their 18-year-old son as required by the statute.”

State v. Whitter, 245 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). · cites it 2× “1969 (now § 925.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) See § 924.07, Fla.”

Romero v. State, 251 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). “1970, section 925.07, F.S.A.). For example, the record before us fails to reveal the appellant’s age or marital status at the time of trial or whether his parent or parents had actual notice of the charge a reasonable time prior to the trial.”

Mitchell v. State, 309 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). · cites it 3× “Appellant Mitchell alleges that at the time of the original offense he was a minor and that Florida Statute § 925.07 requiring the parent or guardian of a minor to be given notice of the criminal charge was not complied with by the State.”

Bird v. State, 353 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). · cites it 6× “In a pro se brief, appellant urges as grounds for reversal that the record did not contain tangible proof, such as a return receipt, that his parent or guardian received notice of the 1964 proceeding, in accordance with § 925.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— 925.07(1) — 2 cases

McKenzie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). “The state responded by arguing, with no supporting case law, that the seven-day period should extend speedy trial since the state was prohibited by the court from going forward with arraignment until Section 925.”

Smart v. State, 321 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.