Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 4/14/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. G. Russell Petersen Attorney for Indian River County School Board 70 Royal Palm Boulevard Suite C Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Petersen:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on substantially the following questions:
1. DOES A JUVENILE CIVIL ADJUDICATION QUALIFY AS A FELONY WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF s. 232.26(2), F.S.?
2. IF A DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD EXPELS A STUDENT PURSUANT TO s. 232.26(2), F.S., MUST THE BOARD RENDER ANY TYPE OF DUE PROCESS TO THE STUDENT PRIOR TO HIS EXPULSION?
3. IS s. 232.26(2), F.S., APPLICABLE TO STUDENTS WHO COMMIT FELONIES ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?
Your questions are interrelated and shall be addressed together. Section 232.26(2), F.S., provides:
Any pupil enrolled as a student who is formally charged with a felony by a proper prosecuting attorney for an incident which allegedly occurred on property other than public school property, but which incident is shown to have an adverse impact on the educational program, discipline, or welfare in the school in which the student is enrolled, shall (following an administrative hearing upon notice provided to the parents or parent or guardian of such pupil by the principal of the school pursuant to rules promulgated by the State Board of Education, if such suspension is recommended) be suspended from all classes of instruction until the determination of his guilt or innocence, or the dismissal of the charge, is made by a court of competent jurisdiction. If the pupil is adjudicated guilty of a felony, the district school board shall immediately expel him. Any pupil who is subject to discipline or expulsion for unlawful possession or use of any substance controlled under chapter 893 [Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act] may be entitled to a waiver of the discipline or expulsion if he divulges information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person who supplied such controlled substance to him, or if he voluntarily discloses his unlawful possession of such controlled substance prior to his arrest. Any information divulged which leads to such arrest and conviction is not admissible in evidence in a subsequent criminal trial against the pupil divulging such information. (e.s.)
And see, s. 232.26(3), F.S., which provides that any student who is subject to discipline or expulsion for the unlawful possession or use of any substance controlled under Ch.
Thus, s. 232.26(2), F.S., provides for the discipline of any pupil enrolled as a student who is formally charged with the commission of a felony by a proper prosecuting attorney for an incident which occurred on other than school property. The incident must be shown to have "an adverse impact on the educational program, discipline, or welfare in the school in which the student is enrolled." Thereupon, having provided notice to the parents or parent or guardian of such pupil, the principal shall conduct an administrative hearing to determine whether the student should be suspended pending the determination of his guilt or innocence, or the dismissal of the charge by a court of competent jurisdiction. Cf., Rule
Part II of Ch.
Based upon the foregoing and in light of the provisions of s. 39.10(4), F.S., providing, inter alia, that adjudication by a court that a child has committed a delinquent act shall not be deemed a conviction, nor that such adjudication operates to impose upon the child any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by or resulting from conviction, I am unable to conclude that an adjudication by a court that a child has committed a delinquent act under Ch.
It is a longstanding rule of statutory construction that where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be accorded its plain and obvious meaning. See, McDonald v. Roland
My research, however, has not revealed any judicial decisions which would mandate a subsequent hearing for a student's expulsion following his/her conviction of felony for the incident giving rise to the initial due process hearing. Section 232.26(2), F.S., itself, makes no provisions for any type of further due process procedure. Rather, the statute directs that the district school board must expel the student upon the occurrence of the events described therein. See, A.B.A. Industries, Inc. v. City of Pinellas Park,
Accordingly, it is my opinion that an adjudication by a court that a child has committed a delinquent act is not sufficient to warrant the expulsion of the student pursuant to s. 232.26(2), F.S. Moreover, s. 232.26(2), F.S., is not applicable to students who commit felonies on school property. If, however, a student who is formally charged with a felony by a prosecuting attorney for an incident which allegedly occurred on property other than public school property but having an adverse impact upon the educational program, discipline, or welfare in the school in which the student is enrolled, and who is suspended after having been accorded the administrative hearing upon notice provided by the principal pursuant to s. 232.26(2), F.S., is adjudicated guilty, such student may be expelled with no further due process procedures, unless the student is entitled to the waiver provisions of s. 232.26.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Prepared by:
John Rosner Assistant Attorney General
Rudolph Sweet, Eddie Rhyne at Al. v. Robert E. Childs, Etc.,... , 507 F.2d 675 ( 1975 )
Tyrone Williams, by His Next Friend, James Ingraham, for ... , 441 F.2d 299 ( 1971 )
Rudolph Sweet, Eddie Rhyne v. Robert E. Childs, Etc., Etc. , 518 F.2d 320 ( 1975 )
St. John Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education , 294 F.2d 150 ( 1961 )
anthony-t-lee-mrs-james-oneal-united-states-of-america , 490 F.2d 458 ( 1974 )
black-students-of-north-fort-myers-jr-sr-high-school-ex-rel-v-ray-l , 470 F.2d 957 ( 1972 )
Graham v. State , 362 So. 2d 924 ( 1978 )
State v. McDonald , 357 So. 2d 405 ( 1978 )
ABA Industries, Inc. v. City of Pinellas Park , 366 So. 2d 761 ( 1979 )
State v. Kinner , 398 So. 2d 1360 ( 1981 )
Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc. , 288 So. 2d 209 ( 1974 )
Holly v. Auld , 450 So. 2d 217 ( 1984 )
Fixel v. Clevenger , 285 So. 2d 687 ( 1973 )
McDonald v. Roland , 65 So. 2d 12 ( 1953 )