A.B.C., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles must be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing. The Court held that such conditions need not be orally pronounced if they are explicitly authorized by statute.
The Court held that statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles need not be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing prior to entry of a written order. Such conditions, if explicitly provided for by statute, are valid when included in a written order of community control.
[1] Statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles need not be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing if they are included in the written order.
[2] Publication in the Florida Statutes provides constructive notice of statutorily authorized conditions of community control.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 condition of probation which is statutorily authorized or mandated ... may be imposed and included in a written order of probation even if not orally pronounced at sentencing”
Establishes the foundational rule that statutorily authorized probation conditions do not require oral pronunciation at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.B.C., a juvenile, was placed under community control as a condition of his adjudication. The trial court imposed a 7 p.m. curfew as a condition of c…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the opinion in A.B.C. v. State, 673 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which certified conflict with the opinion in S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. The petitioner, a juvenile, appealed a trial court order imposing a 7 p.m. curfew as a condition of community control. A.B.C., 673 So. 2d at 966. He specifically challenged “the inclusion of the curfew in the written order when neither a curfew nor curfew time was orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing.” Id. The First District affirmed the trial court’s order, citing the statutory authorization for curfew “as a penalty component of community control,” sections 39.053(2), 39.054(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and our recent decision in State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996) (holding that statutorily authorized conditions of probation need not be specifically pronounced at sentencing).
Id. Then, the First District certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in S.W. where the court struck a condition of the juvenile’s community control requiring sixty hours of community service because it was not orally pronounced. Id.
In Hart, we stated that “a condition of probation which is statutorily authorized or mandated ... may be imposed and included in a written order of probation even if not orally pronounced at sentencing.” 668 So. 2d at 592. In reaching our decision, we relied on State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991) for the general rule that “publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions.” 668 So. 2d at 592-93.
In this case, the First District correctly affirmed the trial court’s order even though the curfew condition of community control was not orally pronounced.
The district court properly relied on our decision in Hart and sections 39.053(2) and 39.054(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes authorizing a curfew for juveniles placed in a community control program in upholding the validity of the trial court’s order.
In contrast, the Fourth District in S.W. erroneously struck the juvenile’s condition of community control requiring sixty hours of community service because it was not orally pronounced. Such a condition is explicitly provided for by statute and, therefore, need not be orally pronounced".
Section 39.053(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), authorizes the imposition of community service as a “penalty component” of a community control program for juveniles with adjudication withheld. Likewise, for juveniles adjudicated delinquent, section 39.054(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), authorizes the same penalty components of a community control program.
Moreover, if a court places adjudicated juveniles in community control, it must include a penalty component such as community service or a curfew. § 39.054(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Therefore, consonant with our reasoning in Hart and Beasley, we hold that statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles adjudicated delinquent or with adjudication withheld need not be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing prior to entry of a written order.
Accordingly, we approve the decision below and disapprove S.W. to the extent it is inconsistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Locke v. State, 719 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…rovided a criminal defendant with constructive notice of those conditions which may be imposed; therefore, a trial court is not required to orally pronounce these general conditions at the time of sentencing. See id. at 592-593. In A.B.C. v. State, 682 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1996), the court, relying on Beasley and Hart, upheld a condition of community control imposing a curfew on a juvenile although it was not orally pronounced in court because it was statutorily authorized by Florida Statutes. See id. at 554-555.…1 / 2
-
J.W.J. v. State, 994 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…Imposition of Special Conditions of Probation Appellant relies on the general rule that special conditions of probation must be stricken if not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Burdo v. State, 682 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla.1996). In A.B.C. v. State, 682 So. 2d 553, 555 (Fla.1996), however, the court concluded that “statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles adjudicated delinquent or with adjudication withheld need not be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing prior to entry of…
-
C.L. v. State, 693 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…iction. An additional point raised by appellant is that the disposition order requires him to perform seventy-five (75) hours of community service, but that condition was not announced by the court at sentencing. We affirm based on A.B.C. v. State, 682 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1996)(statutorily authorized conditions of community control for juveniles adjudicated delinquent or with adjudication withheld need not be orally pronounced). As previously stated, we remand only for the purpose of correcting appellant’s disp…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Taylor v. Lasley, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- A.B.C. v. State, 673 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)