IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., A CHILD
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.
Florida appellate court reversed revocation of juvenile's community control, holding that mere arrest without proof of actual delinquent conduct violates neither the community control order nor statutory requirements.
Mere evidence of an arrest is insufficient to establish violation of a juvenile's community control order.
[1] Arrest without proof of underlying delinquent conduct is insufficient to establish violation of juvenile community control.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Mere evidence of an arrest is insufficient to violate a juvenile's community control.”
Court's holding on the standard for proving community control violations.
L.S. was placed on community control in March 1988 with a special condition prohibiting arrest. In February 1989, he was arrested and charged with Agg…
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 Standard Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
L.S., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community control and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS).
In March of 1988 appellant was placed on community control. The printed “Order of Community Control” form included special condition No. 10 which ordered the child to “[n]ot cause self to be arrested for any reason while on community control.” In February of 1989 a HRS counselor filed a petition that alleged appellant violated community control when “arrested on a new law violation. He is charged with one count of Aggravated Battery and one count of Criminal Mischief.” At the violation of community control hearing, the state presented only appellant and the HRS counsellor as witnesses. Each testified that appellant was arrested but not about the facts of the alleged delinquent acts. The trial judge revoked appellant’s community control and committed him to the custody of HRS.
We reverse. Mere evidence of an arrest is insufficient to violate a juvenile’s community control. See Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978). Accordingly, appellant’s commitment is reversed and upon remand the trial court is directed to reinstate his community control.
In order to prompt a review of the “no arrest” language of all printed forms presently used in Seventeenth Judicial Circuit juvenile court proceedings, we order a copy of this opinion also be mailed to the Court Clerk and HRS.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…was based solely on information he received from another officer. Officer Yancey testified to just- seeing appellant in the back of the patrol car. Probation cannot be revoked solely on proof that one has been arrested. See In the Interest of L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(“Mere evidence of an arrest is insufficient to violate a juvenile’s community control.”); Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)(holding that evidence of a probationer’s arrest, without more, will not support a revoc…
-
Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…hat Appellant violated community control, notwithstanding that the record does contain a misstatement by the court, erroneously affording weight and [*319] relevancy to Appellant’s arrest, which we deem harmless error. We have considered In re L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), but deem it inapposite. Although we find error in the court’s considering the charge that Appellant violated probation for failing to pay $250 court costs in accordance with the terms of a payment schedule prepared by the Depar…
-
In the Interest of A.R., 554 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…munity control and committed him to the department of HRS. We reverse. It is clear that mere evidence of an. arrest alone is an insufficient basis to revoke community control. See Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978); In The Interest of L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989.) Further, the fact that there was no evidence of a written consent to be represented by legal interns is reversible error. See, In The Interest of C.B., 546 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989.) REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1978)