Q.A., A CHILD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation. On appeal, the court found three procedural and substantive errors: the trial court failed to enter a written competency order, failed to specify the violated probation conditions in writing, and imposed sexual offender registration requirements on a juvenile who was under 14 at the time of the offense and thus ineligible under Florida law.
All three issues have merit and require reversal. First, the trial court must memorialize its oral competency finding in a nunc pro tunc written order. Second, the trial court must enter a written order specifying the probation conditions violated. Third, sexual offender registration requirements cannot be imposed on a juvenile under age 14 at the time of the offense; the disposition order must be reversed and remanded for entry of a proper adjudication order.
[1] A trial court's oral finding of competency to proceed must be memorialized in a written order.
[2] A trial court commits error by failing to enter an order specifying the condition or conditions of probation that were violated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court failed to memorialize its finding in a written order.”
Establishes the first error—oral competency findings must be reduced to writing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQ.A., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation with various conditions. The trial court made an oral finding that Q.A. was compe…
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 Competency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Q.A. raises three issues on appeal, all of which have merit and require reversal.
First, the trial court failed to enter an order finding Q.A. competent to proceed. This was error.
The record reflects that the trial court made an oral finding that Q.A. was competent to proceed after it reviewed the evaluations of the court-appointed experts.
However, the trial court failed to memorialize its finding in a written order. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.095(3); see also Hill v. State, 228 So. 3d 730, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); B.R.C. v. State, 210 So. 3d 243, 245–46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). We remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc order doing so.
Second, the trial court failed to enter an order specifying the condition or conditions of probation that Q.A. violated. This too was error, and we remand for entry of an order specifying the violated condition or conditions. See Brinson v. State, 866 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[C]ourt minutes do not constitute appealable orders . . . , [and] our court has consistently ruled that an order revoking probation must state in writing the probationary conditions which the trial court found to have been violated.” (citations omitted)).
Third, sanction 15 of the violation of probation disposition order required that Q.A. comply with sexual offender registration and reporting requirements.
However, under section 943.0435(1)(a)1.d, Florida Statutes (2014), a juvenile under the age of fourteen at the time of the commission of the qualifying offense is not subject to the registration and reporting requirements under the statute. E.g., Bish v. State, 139 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719, 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
Thus, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a proper adjudication order. REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, C.J., COHEN, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elbert Brinson v. State, 866 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Hill v. State, 228 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Bish v. State, 139 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)