T.A.R., 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.
T.A.R., a 13-year-old adjudicated delinquent for attempted burglary and burglary, appealed his disposition order. The court vacated the disposition and remanded for resentencing on two grounds: discrepancies between oral and written pronouncements and the trial court's improper use of a single disposition order for two separate offenses.
The court held that discrepancies between the oral and written disposition orders required vacation and remand for correction. Additionally, absent statutory authorization, a trial court cannot impose a single general disposition order for multiple offenses; separate disposition orders must be entered for each crime.
[1] A written dispositional order that deviates from the court's oral pronouncement requires vacation and remand for correction.
[2] Discrepancies between oral and written dispositions necessitate a factual resolution by the trial court to determine the nature of the error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A general sentence for separate offenses, such as he received, is prohibited.”
Establishes the fundamental rule from H.L.L. v. State that a single sentence cannot apply to multiple offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.A.R., a thirteen-year-old juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent on two counts: attempted burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling. The trial…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Following separate adjudicatory hearings, T.A.R., a thirteen year old juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent on two charges: attempted burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling. The court employed a single order of disposition. By this order, the court suspended commitment to HRS but then proceeded to place T.A.R. on a community control program under HRS supervision until his 19th birthday.. He was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, to attend school with no unexcused absences, to abide by a curfew, to write letters of apology to the two victims, not to enter other people’s homes uninvited, and to write two essays of 500 words each (one essay on private property rights and the other describing his tour of the Orange County Jail). The order also directs T.A.R. to pay $50.00 to the crimes compensation trust fund.
On appeal, T.AR. first asserts that this written dispositional order deviates from the court’s oral pronouncement of disposition. The state concedes that in the oral pronouncement the trial court said nothing about placing T.A.R. on community control until his 19th birthday and ordered a 200 word essay on the juvenile’s impression of the county jail as opposed to a 500 word essay on the matter. Additionally, the oral pronouncement made no mention of the $50.00 cost.
These discrepancies between the oral and written dispositions require that the disposition order be vacated and the cause remanded for correction thereof. See Thomas v. State, 625 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989); Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The conflicts require a factual resolution by the trial court to determine whether the error was verbal or clerical. See Wilkins; Marchand.
TA.R. next asserts that it was error for the court to employ a single dispositional form in sentencing for the two offenses.
In H.L.L. v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the Second District held that a juvenile convicted of two felony offenses and adjudicated delinquent could not receive a single sentence for the two offenses, explaining that, “A general sentence for separate offenses, such as he received, is prohibited.” 595 So. 2d at 223. The court relied on C.P. v. State, 543 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), which in turn had relied on J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The court in J.J.S. held that the sentence before it was improper because it flowed from a single, general order of probation for two separate crimes. The J.J.S. court cited to Ward v. State, 429 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), both of which were predicated on Dorfinan v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977), wherein the supreme court held that a single, general sentence may no longer be imposed for two or more crimes. Dorfman’s rationale has been employed to prohibit general terms of probation for two or more offenses. Ward; Price v. State, 393 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Sections 39.052(3) and 39.054, Florida Statutes, which deal with disposition of delinquents, are silent as to whether one order of disposition may be employed where multiple convictions form the basis for an adjudication of delinquency. Absent express statutory authorization for general sentences which were outlawed by Dorfinan, the juvenile court was required to enter a disposition order for each offense.
We vacate the disposition and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
VACATE DISPOSITION AND REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
G.R.A. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…tiple offenses constitute the basis for a delinquency adjudication, separate disposition orders for each offense must be used. M.L.B. v. State, 673 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); D.D.M. v. State, 662 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The basis for these holdings is that the court creates a general sentence when one disposition order is used. Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977). Although there is no case law imposing the same requirement where adjudic…
-
N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2004)…2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which certified conflict with the decisions in A.L. v. State, 790 ,So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); S.D.W. v. State, 746 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.A. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and L.M. v. State, 610 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Fourth District’s decision in N.C. that while a juvenile is entitle…
-
M.L.B. v. State, 673 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…n order addressing both the battery charge and the violation of community control. The law is clear that separate disposition orders must be entered for each offense adjudicated. D.D.M. v. State, 662 So. 2d 884 (Fla.' 5th DCA 1995); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Remand for correction is therefore required. ADJUDICATIONS AFFIRMED; DISPOSITIONS VACATED; and MATTER REMANDED. PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- H.L.L. v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Powell v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Price v. State, 393 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- C.P. v. State, 543 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)