T.S., 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 child was adjudicated delinquent for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft and placed in community control with electronic monitoring. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that evidence of a separate theft was admissible to establish the complete context of the criminal conduct, and that electronic monitoring was a reasonable special condition of community control.
Evidence of the separate theft was admissible because it was inextricably intertwined in time and place with the crimes charged and necessary to describe the criminal conduct. Electronic monitoring is a permissible special condition of community control because it enforces compliance with geographical restrictions and is reasonably related to the nature of the punishment.
[1] Evidence inextricably intertwined in time and place with the crimes charged is admissible to fully describe the manner in which the criminal deed occurred.
[2] Evidence of a separate theft is proper to establish the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred.
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“Evidence of the separate theft was proper to establish "the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred."”
Establishes the standard for admitting evidence of separate incidents when inextricably intertwined with charged crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer responded to a parking lot crime scene and found a stolen vehicle left behind and the victim's car missing. The child was charged wit…
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 Inextricably Intertwined Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. The trial court placed her in a community control program. A special condition of community control required that appellant wear an electronic monitoring device.
At trial, a police officer testified that when he arrived at the crime scene, a parking lot, he found “a stolen vehicle left” and the victim’s car missing. This evidence was admissible under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1995), because it was inextricably intertwined in time and place with the crimes charged and was necessary to fully describe the way in which the criminal deed happened. See Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1991). Evidence of the separate theft was proper to establish “the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred.” Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 251 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 946, 133 L.Ed.2d 871 (1996); Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
Appellant also challenges the use of an electronic monitoring device as a special condition of community control. By statutory definition, community control contemplates that the freedom of a delinquent child will be limited by the restriction of the child to noninstitutional quarters or to the child’s home. § 39.01(16), Fla.Stat. (1995). Electronic monitoring is a means of enforcing compliance with such a geographical restrie tion. By its language authorizing a trial' court to place a “child in a community control program ... under such reasonable conditions as the court may direct,” section 39.054(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), allows trial courts the discretion to impose special conditions of community control. The discretion to impose special conditions can also be inferred from the language of section 39.054(l)(a)l, which provides that community control programs “must include, but are not limited to, structured or restricted activities as described” in that paragraph. (Emphasis supplied). Here, the special condition of an electronic device was reasonably related to the nature of the punishment.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.S. v. Byrd, 777 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…red. Respondent contends that: (1) the child was placed on community control, and (2) electronic monitoring can be part of a community control program for a juvenile. We agree that such monitoring may be part of community control. In T.S. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1202, 1202-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we held under prior versions of sections 985.23(4) and (5) that electronic monitoring could be a special condition of community control under the juvenile statutes. However, those statutes do not cover home detention, a…
-
Villanueva v. State, 118 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ion who violated condition that prohibited contacting victim); Jones v. State, 678 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (revoking probation of defendant convicted of aggravated battery who violated special condition imposing a curfew); T.S. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1202, 1202-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (upholding special condition of electronic monitoring of juvenile convicted of burglary and grand theft). . See also Morris v. State, 26 So. 3d 660, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that defendant convicted for grand th…
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)
- Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994)
- Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)