IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., A CHILD. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Department of Juvenile Justice appealed a trial court's commitment of a juvenile offender, A.L., to a level ten maximum security facility for criminal mischief and contempt. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statutory criteria for level ten commitment were not satisfied and remanded for resentencing.
The court reversed the commitment to level ten facility, holding that none of the four mandatory statutory criteria in Section 39.0581 were satisfied. Criminal mischief is a misdemeanor, contempt is neither a felony nor misdemeanor, and neither offense met the severity or prior commitment requirements for level ten placement.
[1] A juvenile cannot be committed to a level ten maximum security facility unless one of the four statutory criteria is met.
[2] Criminal mischief causing less than $1000.00 damage is a misdemeanor offense.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Section 39.0581, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), sets forth four mandatory criteria, one of which must be present in order to permit a juvenile to be assigned to a level ten facility”
Establishes the statutory framework governing level ten facility assignments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.L., a repeat juvenile offender with a history of burglary, auto theft, and aftercare violations, committed criminal mischief while at Boley Rehabili…
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 Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
The Department of Juvenile Justice, on behalf of A.L., a minor, challenges A.L.’s long term commitment to a level ten maximum security facility for criminal mischief and contempt. We reverse because the commitment to a level ten security facility for these offenses is not authorized by statute.
A.L. is a repeat offender who has a history of encounters with the juvenile justice system. While at Boley Rehabilitative Center, where he was placed following incarceration for burglary, auto theft, and violation of aftercare, A.L. again violated the terms of his aftercare agreement by committing criminal mischief. As a result, A.L. was charged with contempt.
A.L. pleaded guilty to the contempt charge and was sentenced to fifteen days in secure detention, continued aftercare at Boley Rehabilitative Center, and a suspended commitment to a level eight program. Thereafter, a criminal mischief charge was filed arising out of the same incident at Boley. At the plea hearing on the criminal mischief charge, A.L. pleaded guilty. A.L.’s case manager and his mother informed the court of other strange behavior by A.L. Upon questioning by the court, A.L. told the trial judge that he had become involved in a Satanic cult and that he engaged in group sex and animal mutilation with other minors. Based on this statement, the trial judge immediately initiated contempt proceedings. At the joint hearing for sentencing on the criminal mischief and show cause on the contempt, the trial judge adjudicated A.L. delinquent “on all charges” and re-committed A.L. to the Department for placement in a long-term residential program in a level ten maximum-risk facility.
Section 39.0581, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), sets forth four mandatory criteria, one of which must be present in order to permit a juvenile to be assigned to a level ten facility:
(1) The youth ... has been adjudicated on the current offense for [an enumerated felony].
(2) The ... current offense is a felony, and the child has previously been committed three or more times to a delinquency commitment program.
(3) The youth ... is currently committed for a felony offense and transferred from a moderate-risk or high-risk residential commitment placement.
(4) The youth ... is eligible for prosecution as an adult for the current offense, and the current offense is ranked at level 7 or higher on the sentencing guidelines offense severity ranking chart pursuant to s. 921.0012.
The record reflects that none of the enumerated criteria apply to A.L. Neither the criminal mischief nor the contempt charge is a felony. Criminal mischief, which results in less than $1000.00 damage, is a misdemeanor. § 806.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. See Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1960). At the time of the current offenses, A.L. was in aftercare following his commitment for burglary and grand theft. Although both of these offenses are felonies, Boley Rehabilitative Center is not a moderate-risk or high-risk residential commitment facility, rather it is a nonresidential aftercare program. Additionally, neither criminal mischief nor contempt is ranked at level seven or higher on the sentencing guidelines offense severity ranking chart. Since none of the criteria of section 39.0581 are applicable to A.L., the trial court was not authorized to commit him to a level ten facility. We, therefore, vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing.
On remand, the trial court must enter separate sentences for each charged offense. See E.Y. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Additionally, the trial court should punish A.L. for the contempt charge in accordance with section 39.0145, Florida Statutes (1995).
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.S. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ordered aftercare agreement. This court recently addressed this issue, and in so doing, interpreted the same statutory scheme applicable in the present case to preclude a recommitment to a level ten facility in cases such as this. See A.L. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Because the result in this case is dictated by this court’s decision in A.L., we reverse. The sentence is reversed and this matter is remanded for resentencing. PATTERSON, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur.…
-
Debby J. Giordano v. State, 32 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…r a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a third category of crimes simply described as “common law crimes.” See Graves v. State, 821 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Contempt is a common law crime in Florida,....”); Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. State, 705 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.”); Welch v. Rice, 636 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (noting that contempt is not a misdemeanor offense). Common law crimes, such as criminal contempt, which have not bee…
-
Jacovis James Saridakis v. State, 936 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…[f]or all practical purposes, criminal contempt is the equivalent of a misdemeanor,” does not mean it is a misdemeanor. See Moorman, 490 So. 2d at 187. Indeed, one court has stated that “[c]ontempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.” In re A.L., 705 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1960)). Further, applying section 775.081(2) (providing that any misdemeanor not declared by statute to be of the first degree is of the second degree) to section 775.02 (pro…
Authorities Cited
- Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1960)
- E.Y. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)