A.P., 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 trial court's refusal to allow a child or their parents to comment on disposition and rehabilitative plans before announcing disposition constitutes reversible error.
A juvenile pleaded no contest to carrying a weapon on school property. At the disposition hearing, the trial court refused to allow the child or his m…
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 Disposition Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
A.P., a child, appeals his adjudication of delinquency and disposition. A.P. argues that the trial court erred in denying an opportunity for him and his mother to be heard prior to disposition. We agree and reverse.
A.P. entered a plea of no contest to carrying a weapon on school property. At the disposition hearing, A.P.’s attorney stated that the child and his mother were present to explain the circumstances to the court. The trial court refused to allow the child or his mother to speak and placed A.P. on community control.
We concede, considering the serious nature of the charges, that nothing the child or his parent had to say would have affected the trial court’s disposition. As in this case, however, a juvenile proceeding is often the first experience with the court system. We believe it is an opportunity to create a lasting impression of fair and impartial justice. This is best achieved by allowing the parties to the proceeding to be heard, and this is what the law requires.
Section 39.052(3)(c)(4), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that, prior to determining and announcing the disposition, a trial court shall give parties, including the parents, “an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition and any proposed rehabilitative plan.” A trial court’s refusal to allow the child or child’s parents to address the court, as provided by this section, constitutes reversible error. See, e.g., T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090 (Fla: 5th DCA1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of adjudication but reverse the order of commitment. On remand, the trial court shall conduct a new disposition hearing at which time A.P. and his mother shall be allowed to address the court in accordance with the statute.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.R. v. State, 902 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…al court’s failure to allow a child’s parents to testify at a disposition hearing constitutes reversible error. See K.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see also A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition to preventing B.R.’s mother from speaking at disposition, the trial court erred by making statements which discouraged B.R’s rights not to plead guilty and to maintain his innocence at trial. A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2…
-
E.J.J. v. State, 346 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…cf. M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding fundamental error where trial court wholly failed to give juvenile and her father an opportunity to comment on issue of disposition prior to court’s determination); A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing and remanding adjudication of delinquency and disposition where juvenile’s counsel notified court as to juvenile and his mother’s presence, and “[t]he trial court refused to allow the child or his mother to speak”)…
-
M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…damental error. See § 985.433(4), Fla. Stat. (2011); see also B.R. v. State, 902 So. 2d 333, 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that trial court’s refusal to allow juvenile’s mother to speak at disposition hearing was reversible error); A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that the trial court’s refusal to allow juvenile or juvenile’s parents to address the court at disposition was reversible error). We now move on to address the second issue. The juvenile next argues that the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)