M.C.P., 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 affirmed the trial court's deviation from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended commitment level but reversed the disposition order because it failed to properly limit the juvenile's commitment term to the earlier of the maximum adult sentence or the child's nineteenth birthday.
A trial court may deviate from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended restrictiveness level if it states reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence why it is disregarding the department's assessment, but a juvenile's commitment term must be limited to the maximum adult term or the date of the juvenile's nineteenth birthday, whichever occurs first.
[1] A trial court may order placement at a different restrictiveness level than recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice if it states reasons on the record establish…
[2] A juvenile's commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice is limited to the maximum adult term or the date of the juvenile's nineteenth birthday, whichever occurs fir…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.C.P., a child, was adjudicated delinquent for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. The trial court deviated from the Department of Juvenile Justi…
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 was adjudicated delinquent for committing a burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. We affirm that portion of the adjudication order deviating from the recommended commitment level and placing appellant at a moderate risk commitment level. Section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that the court can commit the child at the restrictiveness level identified by the Department of Juvenile Justice or “may order placement at a different restrictiveness level.” It requires the court to “state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.” § 985.23(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court adequately stated its reasons in the record.
The disposition order is erroneous. The order commits appellant to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for “an indeterminate term not to exceed the child’s nineteenth birthday or the max imum allowed by law, commitment as to Count 2 to run concurrently with commitment as to Count 1.” A juvenile’s commitment is limited to the maximum adult term or to the date of the juvenile’s nineteenth birthday, whichever occurs first. M.J.P. v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2090, — So. 2d -, 1997 WL 536011 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 3, 1997), aff'd, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S192, 717 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1998); M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); E.J. v. State, 595 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We reverse and remand for the order to be so corrected.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
ERVIN, MINER, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child. A.C.N. And the reasons must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. § 985.23(3)(c); A.C.N. v. State, [*1248] 727 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); M.C.P. v. State, 732 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Our review on appeal is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. A.C.N. If the trial court fails to m…
-
N.B. v. State, 746 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…different offenses carried different statutory maximum terms of commitment; order was vacated and case remanded with instructions to enter separate orders for each offense and to specify term of commitment for misdemeanor offense); M.C.P. v. State, 732 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); T.G. v. State, 677 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); C.P. v. State, 674 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We AFFIRM the adjudicati…
-
M.E. v. State, 733 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…affirm the trial court’s disposition but remand to the trial court to correct the written disposition order to include a term limit not to exceed one year which is the maximum punishment for this misdemeanor of the first degree. See M.C.P. v. State, 732 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Affirmed and remanded for entry of corrected disposition order. DELL, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
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
- M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- E.J. v. State, 595 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- State v. M.J.P., 717 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1998)