I.H., A CHILD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the trial court erred by not allowing the appellant and his mother to comment on disposition before it was announced, but complied with statutory requirements for stating reasons for commitment.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for robbery and committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The trial court refused to all…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his adjudication of delinquency for robbery1 and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. We affirm the trial court’s order of adjudication but reverse the trial court’s order of commitment and remand this matter for a proper dispositional hearing pursuant to section 39.09(3)(c) of the Florida Statutes (1989).
Section 39.09(3)(c)4 provides that, before the trial court determines and announces the disposition to be imposed, the court shall give all parties at the hearing an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition and any proposed rehabilitation plan. Those parties include, if present, the child’s parents and counsel. The trial court refused to allow the appellant and his mother to address the court before it determined and announced its disposition in this matter. This refusal constituted error. T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). However, we reject appellant’s claim that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.09(3)(e). Section 39.09(3)(e) requires the trial court to include specific findings or reasons for the decision to adjudicate and commit a child to the Department. Here, the trial court stated that the commitment was required because “this is a violent offense.” This statement complies with the statute.
The state filed a cross-appeal in this matter challenging an evidentiary ruling issued by the trial court. Because we affirm the trial court’s order of adjudication, review of this issue is unnecessary.
Adjudication AFFIRMED; commitment REVERSED; cause REMANDED.
HARRIS, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . § 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.C. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ealment by appellant, and his immaturity. We conclude that this satisfies the requirements of section 39.052(4)(e)(3), Florida Statutes (1995). See R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992); I.H. v. State, 584 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The next issue regards sentencing. The order in this case states that appellant is sentenced to commitment not to exceed 364 days followed by post commitment community control not to exceed 364 days. In addition to the sentenc…
-
J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…. To be sure, there were exceptions to the general rule. First, if a trial court failed to follow the prescribed procedure at sentencing, the defendant could appeal the procedural error and obtain a new sentencing hearing. See, e.g., I.H. v. State, 584 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Second, if there was an indication that the trial court had engaged in retaliatory sentencing, or had otherwise considered an impermissible factor in sentencing, then the defendant could obtain a new sentencing hearing, possibly…1 / 2
-
Winther v. State, 812 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…evant to sentencing appeals. Based upon this authority, judicial discretion in sentencing is not appealable. There are some exceptions to this rule, including a defendant’s right to appeal a procedural error in sentencing. See, e.g., I.H. v. State, 584 So. 2d 230, 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). A defendant also may appeal the trial judge’s consideration of an impermissible factor, such as judicial vindictiveness when a defendant rejects a plea bargain and elects to go to trial. See, e.g., Cavallaro v. State, 647 S…
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
- T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)