C.D.N., 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.
This case involves a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for battery on a school official and resisting an officer. The appellate court affirmed the commitment level but reversed the disposition order for the misdemeanor offense, finding it exceeded the statutory maximum.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the commitment level. However, the court held that the trial court erred in entering a single commitment order for both offenses, which resulted in a commitment exceeding the statutory maximum for the misdemeanor.
[1] A trial court may commit a juvenile to a low-risk commitment level without requesting a recommended restrictiveness level from the Department of Juvenile Justice.
[2] An argument that a single disposition order resulted in a commitment in excess of the statutory maximum for a misdemeanor offense is preserved for appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In accordance with State v. E.D.P., — So. 2d -, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524, 1998 WL 696947 (Fla. October 8, 1998), we affirm.”
This quote establishes the court's affirmation of the trial court's decision regarding the commitment level.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for battery on a school official and resisting a police officer without violence. The trial court committed the …
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 Disposition Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for battery on a school official and resisting a police officer without violence, raises two issues on appeal Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred in rejecting the Department of Juvenile. Justice’s community control recommendation and committing the juvenile to a low-risk commitment level without requesting a recommended restrictiveness level from the Department. In accordance with State v. E.D.P., — So. 2d -, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524, 1998 WL 696947 (Fla. October 8, 1998), we affirm.
Appellant next argues that the court erred by entering a single order of commitment for both the third degree felony and first degree misdemeanor counts that resulted in a commitment in excess of the statutory maximum of one year for the misdemeanor offense. Initially, in accordance with our recent decision in A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly D2043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we reject the state’s argument that this issue was not preserved. The single disposition order in the instant case committed appellant, who was then sixteen, to an “indeterminate term not to exceed the child’s nineteenth birthday or the maximum allowed by law” for the third degree felony with the sentence for the misdemeanor to run concurrently.
We agree that the trial court erred. See A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly D2043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); M.J.P. v. State, — So. 2d -, 22 Fla.
L. Weekly D2090, 1997 WL 536011 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 3, 1997), approved, 717 So. 2d 459, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly S192 (Fla.1998); M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); C.P. v. State, 674 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Accordingly, the disposition order is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of a new order limiting the commitment for the misdemeanor offense to one year. See T.C. v. State, — So. 2d -, No. 97-4209, 1998 WL 716898 (Fla. 1st DCA October 15, 1998). On remand, the court should enter separate disposition orders for each offense. Id.
ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.P. v. State, 730 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…or indeterminate periods of commitment “constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal.” T.C. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2343,-So. 2d-, 1998 WL 716898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); T.D.J. v. State, 725 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.N v. State, 720 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); T.R.G. v. State, 697 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The fact that D.P. may have served the maximum time provided by statute does not make the disposition order any less illegal. We therefore vacate the dispositions and remand fo…
-
T.B. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…felony). The need for clarification of the term of supervision is especially acute where, as here, the two different offenses carry different statutory maximum terms of commitment. A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); C.D.N. v. State, 720 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).2 Upon remand, a separate order must be entered for each offense. J.M.J. v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at D1673, -— So. 2d -; G.R.A. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); E.Y. v. State, 670 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).…
-
K.L.P. v. State, 783 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ch juvenile offense. See D.L.J. v. State, 765 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); T.B. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); N.B. v. State, 746 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); C.D.N. v. State, 720 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Here, the trial court entered a single disposition order for all the cases against the appellant with attached documents for each offense. This is in contravention of both Rule 8.115(c) and court precedent. Furthermore, the tr…
Authorities Cited
- M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- C.P. v. State, 674 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- A. F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- William Earl Banks v. Singletary, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- State v. M.J.P., 717 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1998)