IN THE INTEREST OF L.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 condition of community control requiring participation in religious youth programs violates the First Amendment and improperly delegates judicial authority.
Appellant was found delinquent and ordered to participate in youth programs at his mother's church as a condition of community control. The order requ…
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 Delegation Of Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order adjudicating appellant delinquent. At issue is the validity of the requirement, as a condition of community control, that appellant “get with the pastor” of his mother’s church and enroll in any and all of the church’s youth programs.
Requiring a probationer or community eontrollee to submit to a course of religious instruction contravenes the First Amendment. Owens v. Kelley, 681 F. 2d 1362, 1365 (11th Cir.1982). Although the record below does not indicate whether any or all of the youth programs have religious content, the order requires appellant to participate in such programs, regardless of content. This was error. The condition is also erroneous, in that it delegates to the pastor of a church the judicial function of determining those programs best suited to meet appellant’s rehabilitation needs. See Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must, therefore, reverse.
The record is clear, however, that the trial court found that appellant could benefit from participation in youth programs. The trial court may therefore, on remand, impose alternate conditions of community control, including the requirement that appellant attend youth programs of secular content.
BOOTH, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.C.L. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…d. at 700-01 (emphasis added). The instant trial judge, by requiring ML to study historically renowned moral leaders, exercised reasonable discretion to foster ML’s rehabilitation. ML notwithstanding relies on this court’s holding in L.M. v. State, 587 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (L.M.I). We held there: “Requiring a probationer or community control-lee to submit to a course of religious instruction contravenes the First Amendment.” Id. at 649. ML ignores that we held that even a juvenile’s instruction at…
-
L.M. v. State, 610 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…enroll in any and all of its youth programs. We held this condition invalid because it [*1316] required a community controllee to submit to a course of religious instruction in contravention of the First Amendment. In the Interest of L.M. v. State, 587 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We explained that this condition unlawfully “delegate[d] to the pastor of a church the judicial function of determining those programs best suited to meet [L.M.’s] rehabilitation needs.” Id. at 649. The opinion further stated, h…1 / 4
-
M.A.D. a Child v. State, 647 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…that portion which imposes sentence under those counts. We remand for correction of the order in this regard. [*261] The state has conceded that the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to participate in church activities. See L.M. v. State, 587 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We therefore reverse that portion of the order which imposes this condition of community control. On remand, the court may impose an alternate condition, such as the requirement that appellant attend youth programs of secular co…
Authorities Cited
- Owens v. Asa D. Kelley, Jr., 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)