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.
The court held that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to county jail for contempt, as the applicable statute prohibits placing juveniles in adult facilities.
A juvenile was found guilty of contempt for running away from a residential home and was sentenced to two days in county jail. This sentence was impos…
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 Juvenile Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
L.M., a juvenile, was found guilty of contempt of court for running away from Plantation House, a residential home for juveniles. On appeal, L.M. argues that the court did not have authority to sentence her to county jail for two days as punishment for the contempt. We agree and vacate appellant’s sentence.
L.M. had run away from Plantation House before. At the hearing concerning that earlier episode, the court had told L.M. that, as punishment, he would sentence her to county jail for two days, but would suspend the sentence on the condition that she not run away from Plantation House again. When she ran away again, the court imposed the two-day county jail sentence.
L.M. argues that the court did not have the authority to sentence her to county jail. Although she cites the incorrect statute in support of her position, application of the correct statute leads to the same result.
The prior applicable statute, section 39.-111(7), Florida Statutes (1989), was repealed, effective October 1, 1990, by section 17, chapter 90-208. Under that section, the court could not sentence a contemptuous juvenile to secure detention, but could impose a county jail sentence after making certain findings. See also T.D.L. v. Chinault, 570 So. 2d 1335 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). On October 1, 1990, however, that section was repealed and the legislature enacted section 39.044(10), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980). Although the new statute allows juveniles to be placed in secure detention, it sets up procedural safeguards that a court must follow before doing so. It also specifically prohibits their placement in jail or other facilities intended for adults. Because L.M. was sentenced in February 1991, this new statute must be applied.
The court’s order placing L.M. in county jail for two days thus violates the statute then in effect and, accordingly, we must reverse and remand for resentencing under the appropriate statute.
RYDER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.A. v. Cornell Rolle, 604 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1992)…acted pointlessly.”). Notwithstanding its decision in T.D.L., however, the Second District subsequently held that the 1990 amendments to chapter 39 specifically allowed for the placement of contemptuous juveniles in secure detention. L.M. v. State, 592 So. 2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In so deciding, the Second District relied on the newly enacted section 39.044(10), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), which provides in part: Any child placed into detention for contempt of court shall be represented by legal…
-
S.J. v. State, 596 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…rocess rights that must be provided. In Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. State of Florida, et al., Case Nos. 91-269, etc., (Fla. 5th DCA March 27, 1992), this court agreed with the Second District Court of Appeal in L.M. v. State, 592 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which stated that detention based solely on contempt requires prior compliance with the procedural requirements of section 39.044(10). Those due process ri'ghts include legal representation, a court hearing and notice of the char…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 599 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ied. The state equates this probable cause finding with a finding of contempt. “Contempt” is apparently a key device used by the juvenile court to access detention for juveniles who are under court supervision for prior offenses. See L.M. v. State, 592 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). There is authority for use of contempt as a sanction for violation of community control12 and we have recently held that secure detention is an appropriate sanction for indirect contempt by a juvenile. B.P., 588 So. 2d 39. Prior…
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.D.L. v. Chinault, 570 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)