V.I., 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 court lacks jurisdiction to enforce restitution beyond a defendant's nineteenth birthday if the offense occurred before October 1, 1993.
A defendant was charged with criminal mischief in 1991 and placed on community control with restitution. The trial court retained jurisdiction beyond …
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 Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant raises several points on appeal, but we need only address the question of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the defendant beyond his nineteenth birthday, and reverse on that issue.
The defendant was charged with criminal mischief that occurred on April 4, 1991, and was ultimately placed on community control with restitution as a condition. On August 10, 1994, the trial judge held that the defendant violated community control for failure to meet the restitution obligations. The trial judge then ordered the defendant to pay $100.00 per week, and the court retained jurisdiction over the case to enforce restitution beyond the defendant’s nineteenth birthday (September 30,1994).
The defendant asserts that the trial court is without jurisdiction to enforce restitution after September 30,1994. We agree.
Jurisdiction over a defendant as a juvenile ceases when the person attains the age of nineteen. In the Interest of B.P., 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). An exception is section 39.022(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), which permits extended retention of jurisdiction to enforce restitution orders. That section, however, applies only to offenses committed October 1,1993, and thereafter. Since the offense here was committed in 1991, there was no basis for the trial court to retain jurisdiction after the defendant’s nineteenth birthday.
This holding, of course, does not prevent the victims from seeking to enforce restitution in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action, as provided in section 775.089(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992).
REVERSED.
DELL, STONE, JJ., and KAHN, MARTIN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anton v. State, 92 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…and CONNER, JJ„ concur. . Although the trial court cannot extend or enforce the order once probation expires, the State and the victim are still able to enforce the restitution order as a civil judgment under section 775.089(5). See V.I. v. State, 667 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (court could not enforce restitution after juvenile’s nineteenth birthday; victim can enforce restitution under section 775.089(5) after trial court loses jurisdiction over juvenile). To invoke that jurisdiction, the State must p…
-
State v. E.I., 114 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…n over any child at any time. E.I. reached his 19th birthday on May 11, 2012. Unless a child is already under commitment, in a transition program, or subject to a restitution order, the jurisdiction of a juvenile court ends at age 19. V.I. v. State, 667 So. 2d 439, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also § 985.0301(5), Fla. Stat. None of these apply to E.I. Thus, we And that this case has become moot because the trial court would no longer have jurisdiction if we remanded this case for further proceedings. “A case…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)