D.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a nunc pro tunc adjudication of delinquency entered after a juvenile reached age 19, holding that such an order exceeded the proper scope of nunc pro tunc relief, which is limited to correcting clerical mistakes or memorializing previously taken judicial acts, not curing jurisdictional defects.
The court reversed the nunc pro tunc adjudication, holding that such an order exceeded the proper scope of nunc pro tunc relief. A nunc pro tunc order may only correct clerical mistakes or memorialize previously taken judicial acts, not cure jurisdictional defects or supply omitted judicial action.
[1] Juvenile jurisdiction under Chapter 39 terminates upon the individual reaching nineteen years of age.
[2] A nunc pro tunc order may correct clerical mistakes or memorialize previously taken judicial acts.
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“Section 39.02(4), Florida Statutes (1989), states that Chapter 39 jurisdiction is terminated when the juvenile reaches nineteen years of age. It is well-settled that such jurisdiction ceases when the individual reaches majority.”
Establishes the statutory bar to jurisdiction after reaching age 19
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, then 18 years old, was charged with breaking and entering and grand theft. An adjudicatory hearing was held where the state proved both…
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 Judicial Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order in which the appellant was adjudicated delinquent. The appellant was charged with breaking and entering a residence and grand theft while he was still eighteen years old. An adjudicatory hearing was held, at the conclusion of which the state was found to have met its burden of proof as to both charges. The court, without adjudicating the child delinquent or withholding adjudication, set a disposition hearing for five days after the juvenile was to reach the age of nineteen. An emergency motion to terminate jurisdiction was filed by the appellant after his nineteenth birthday. The court found that even though the juvenile was not formally adjudicated prior to his nineteenth birthday, the findings which the court had made at the conclusion of the trial could be considered an adjudication of the offenses charged. The court then found it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the child delinquent nunc pro tunc to the date of the trial.
Section 39.02(4), Florida Statutes (1989), states that Chapter 39 jurisdiction is terminated when the juvenile reaches nineteen years of age. It is well-settled that such jurisdiction ceases when the individual reaches majority. See In the Interest of B.P., a child, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); In the Interest of C.L.D., a child, 464 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State of Florida v. A.N.F., a child, 413 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Nunc pro tunc orders are issued to correct clerical mistakes or refer to judicial acts which memorialize a previously taken judicial act. Further, when applied to the entry of a legal order, the nunc pro tunc order generally refers to the trial judge’s previous action for which there is an insufficient record but not to a new or de novo decision. Whack v. Seminole Memorial Hospital, 456 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In Erlacher v. Erlacher, 289 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the court stated:
The term “nunc pro tunc” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, P. 1267, as follows:
“A nunc tunc entry is an entry made now, of something which was actually previously done, to have effect as to the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission in the record of action really had where entry thereof was omitted through inadvertence or mistake. Perkins v. Perkins, 225 Mass. 392, 114 N.E. 713 ; People v. Rosenwald, 266 Ill. 548, 107 N.E. 854, 856 ; Ann.Cas. 1915D, 688; Grizzard v. Fite, 137 Tenn. 103, 191 S.W. 969, 971 ; L.R.A. 1917D, 652; Freeman v. Hulbert, 230 Mich. 455, 203 N.W. 158, 160 .” This definition, as well as the statement of its purpose and use seems to be universally followed. See, 288A, Words and Phrases, 779-794.
See also Trawick, Fla. Prac. and Proc., § 15-5 (1989 ed.); Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401, 173 So. 143 (1937).
The nunc pro tunc order entered in the case at bar was clearly an attempt to correct an oversight created when the disposition hearing was set for five days after Chapter 39 jurisdiction over the appellant lapsed. This exceeds the scope of the proper purposes for which a nunc pro tunc order can be issued. Accordingly, the order adjudicating the appellant delinquent nunc pro tunc is reversed.
ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffith v. State, 654 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…as the defendant who argued that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the charges. The district court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the defen [*941] dant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. To the same effect is D.M. v. State, 580 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (nunc pro tunc order making disposition of juvenile delinquency case 5 days after defendant reached age of 19 reversed; juvenile court lost jurisdiction to effect disposition when defendant passed 19th birthday). Frankly we deem…
-
Carridine v. State, 721 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (Rule 3.702(d)(18) “require(s) some form of writing, and the judge’s signature, and a timely filing.”). Nunc pro tunc orders are issued to correct clerical mistakes or memorialize a previously taken judicial act. D.M. v. State, 580 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In State v. Wood, 700 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the First District held that a trial court’s written order reiterating the oral adjudication of guilt on the charge of indirect criminal contempt could not be given nunc pro…
-
L.S. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 779 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…c orders are issued to correct clerical mistakes or refer to judicial acts which memorialize a previously taken judicial act. They cannot be used to exceed the scope of the proper purpose for which a nunc pro tunc order can be issued. D.M. v. State, 580 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). DJJ responded in opposition to the petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that L.S. had sufficient notice that aftercare was a part of his Level 6 commitment and that his affirmative statement that he did not object to DJJ’…
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
- Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1937)
- Williams v. State, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Whack v. Seminole Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 456 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. A.N.F., 413 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of C.L.D. v. Honorable W.O. Beauchamp, Jr., 464 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Erlacher v. Erlacher, 289 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)