P.B., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
P.B., an indigent juvenile charged with petit theft, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to state custody after refusing a plea agreement requiring $125 restitution that he could not afford, while his co-defendant received a nolle pros for the same restitution amount. The court reversed, holding that conditioning a plea agreement on restitution a juvenile cannot pay violates equal protection principles.
A juvenile cannot be committed simply because he is indigent. The state's discretion in fashioning plea agreements cannot be exercised to deny an indigent juvenile equal protection under the state and federal constitutions.
[1] A juvenile cannot be committed to custody solely because of indigency.
[2] Denying an indigent defendant the opportunity to avoid trial or conviction based on their inability to pay restitution violates equal protection.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A juvenile cannot be committed simply because he is indigent.”
Establishes the core legal principle that indigency alone cannot be the basis for commitment to state custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.B. and R.S. were charged with petit theft of a knife, cap, and wrench. The state offered R.S. a plea agreement where his mother paid $125 restitutio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indigency cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
P.B. appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the custody of HRS. We reverse.
P.B. and R.S. were charged with petit theft of a knife, cap, and wrench. Both denied the charges. Before the adjudicatory hearing, the state announced that it had reached a plea agreement with R.S. under which the mother of R.S. agreed to pay the victim $125 in restitution in exchange for a nolle pros of the charges against her son. Restitution was made, and the state entered a nolle pros.
The state offered the same plea to P.B. However, neither P.B. nor his family could afford to pay the victim $125. The family could not afford to pay one-half that amount, which the victim agreed would be adequate. Neither the state nor the victim would agree to allow P.B. to perform com- mumty service in lieu of restitution and insisted that P.B. be tried. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the court found P.B. guilty of petit theft, adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to the custody of H.R.S.
From the record it is unmistakably clear that P.B. would not even have been tried if he had been able to pay $62.50 in restitution. His adjudication of delinquency and commitment to HRS inevitably followed from his indigency. A juvenile cannot be committed simply because he is indigent. V.H. v. State, 498 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In V.H., an indigent juvenile was unable to pay $48 in restitution and was committed. The trial judge had indicated a willingness to place Y.H. on community control if she paid restitution. The appellate court reversed the order of commitment, relying upon Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971). In Tate, the Court condemned, as a violation of equal protection, the practice of imprisoning an indigent defendant merely because he was financially unable to pay a fine. Id. at 399, 91 S.Ct. at 671, 28 L.Ed.2d at 133.
Here, P.B. was tried, adjudicated delinquent, and committed to the custody of H.R.S. in derogation of Tate’s mandate. The trial court’s error is particularly egregious in light of the state’s agreement to nolle pros P.B.’s corespondent’s charges in exchange for $125 restitution to the victim. Although the state enjoys wide discretion in fashioning plea agreements, that discretion cannot be exercised to deny an indigent juvenile equal protection under the Florida and United States constitutions. The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that “[tjhere can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (quoting Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12,19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 591,100 L.Ed. 891, 899 (1956)).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noel v. State, 127 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…f the indigent defendant, as “morally repugnant.” The court questioned “the wisdom of plea agreements that permit longer prison terms for poor people whose relatives have failed to raise the money needed to buy their freedom.” Id. In P.B. v. State, 533 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the Third District — citing Tate, Bearden, and V.H. — held that it was a violation of equal protection to order the commitment of a juvenile defendant where his co-defendant’s charges were dropped under a plea deal that the…
-
Malone v. State, 973 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…s. 924.06(1). Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (noting that section 921.001(l)(h) of the Criminal Punishment Code constitutionally limits a defendant’s right to appeal a sentence). Appellant relies primarily on P.B. v. State, 533 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the defendant and a co-defendant were charged with one theft, and the state agreed to nolle pros the co-defendant when his mother agreed to pay $125 restitution. The same plea offer was made to the defendant, but he coul…
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983)
- V.H. v. State, 498 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bruce H. Lynn, M.D., P.A. v. Miller, 498 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)