S.V.E., 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 arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence for lawful custody and the nature of the facility were not preserved for appellate review because they were not raised in the trial court.
[1] Arguments not raised in the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.
[2] A juvenile's escape charge requires proof that the individual was in lawful custody.
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 intelligenceA child was committed to a non-residential program, absconded, and was transferred to a residential program. The child was subsequently charged with j…
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 Unconstitutional Delegation Of Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
The child, S.V.E., appeals from a final order adjudicating him delinquent for escaping from a residential commitment facility, in violation of section 39.061, Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm.
The child was originally committed to a special intensive group program, a minimum-risk, nonresidential commitment program. Upon absconding from that program, however, the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) transferred him to a moderate-risk, residential commitment program pursuant to section 39.021(4), Florida Statutes (1995). The child was charged with juvenile escape for allegedly absconding from the latter facility.
The child’s first argument essentially challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the “lawful custody” element of escape, claiming the trial court’s lack of response cannot be deemed approval of the Department’s transfer as there was no evidence the trial court actually received a copy of the transfer order. Because this specific argument was not made before the trial court below, however, it is not preserved for appellate review.
The child’s second argument is that there was insufficient evidence that the facility from which he allegedly absconded was a “residential commitment facility” within the meaning of sections 39.061 and 39.01(59), Florida Statutes (1995). This issue is also not preserved for appellate review as it was not raised below.
The child’s final argument challenges the facial constitutionality of section 39.021(4), which authorizes the Department, with the oversight of the trial court that committed the child, to transfer the child to a different commitment program. Citing B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2559, 132 L.Ed.2d 812 (1995), the child argues the 1995 statute constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency and violates due process. We find the child’s argument in this regard to be without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the child’s adjudication and disposition in all respects.
AFFIRMED.
MINER and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.M. v. State, 820 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…sole issue On appeal is that the trial court erred in adjudicating him delinquent based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Because this specific argument was not made before the trial court, we are foreclosed from reviewing it. See S.V.E. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001) (requiring [*1070] the issue to be raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court in order to be presérved for appeal). Accordingly, we affirm E.M.’s adjudication and disposition. A…
Authorities Cited
- B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1994)