T.C., 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 juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on three offenses and received a single indeterminate disposition order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice until age 21. The appellate court reversed because the disposition for the first-degree misdemeanor offense exceeded the one-year statutory maximum, requiring separate disposition orders on remand.
The disposition order is illegal because it exceeds the one-year statutory maximum for the misdemeanor offense, as the commitment until age 21 would extend beyond one year. The case is reversed and remanded for entry of separate disposition orders for each offense, with the misdemeanor commitment limited to one year.
[1] An indeterminate disposition order for a first-degree misdemeanor offense that exceeds the one-year statutory maximum is an illegal disposition requiring reversal and rem…
[2] Disposition orders providing for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed statutory maximums for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions.
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“disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal and remand for entry of new orders”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that grounds reversal in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was adjudicated delinquent on three offenses: two third-degree felonies and one first-degree misdemeanor (criminal mischief). The trial …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering only one disposition order for the three offenses for which he was adjudicated delinquent. We agree that the indeterminate disposition for the first-degree misdemeanor offense exceeds the maximum allowed by law and therefore reverse and remand for entry of new disposition orders.
The disposition order committed appellant, based on three offenses, to the Department of Juvenile Justice “until he is legally discharged therefrom, provided such commitment shall not extend beyond his 21st birthday.” Two of appellant’s offenses are considered third degree felonies and the third, criminal mischief, is a first degree misdemeanor. The statutory máxi-mums for these offenses are five years and one year, respectively. §§ 775.082(3)(d) & (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The law is well established that disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal and remand for entry of new orders. See, e.g., M.J.P. v. State, 22 Fla.
L. Weekly D2090, - So. 2d -, 1997 WL 536011 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept.3, 1997), approved, 23 Fla. ,L. Weekly S192, 717 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1998); T.R.G. v. State, 697 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); 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); B.S. v. State, 661 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While the disposition order at bar is proper for the two felony offenses, it is not for the misdemeanor, because the one year statutory maximum for the misdemeanor offense will expire prior to appellant attaining 21 years of age.
Therefore, in accordance with the above case law, the disposition order must be reversed and the case remanded for entry of a new order limiting the commitment for the misde meanor offense to one year. See also S.P. v. State, 664 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, the trial court should enter separate disposition orders for each offense. See J.M.J. v. State, 22 Fla.
L. Weekly D1673, — So. 2d -, 1997 WL 369951 (Fla. 1st DCA July 7, 1997); A.L.W. v. State, 22 Fla.
L. Weekly D2227, — So. 2d -, 1997 WL 578660 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 16, 1997), approved, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly S191, 717 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to enter new disposition orders.
ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.W. v. State, 787 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…offense, as charged, is sixty days. § 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). A disposition order that provides for an indeterminate period of commitment that exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense constitutes an illegal disposition. T.C. v. State, 736 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The State concedes error in this case. We therefore reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a new order that limits the commitment term to the statutory maximum for the offense. We affirm in all other respects. W…
-
T.W. v. State, 775 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…d after adjudications of what would have been, if committed by an adult, a first-degree misdemeanor, a third-degree felony, and a second-degree felony. The disposition order provides for level 6 commitment of indeterminate length. See T.C. v. State, 736 So. 2d 698, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The law is well established that disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions that require…
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)
- State v. ALW, 717 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1998)
- T.G. v. State, 677 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. M.J.P., 717 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1998)
- Byas v. State, 661 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- T.R.G. v. State, 697 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Buchy v. State, 664 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- S.P. v. State, 664 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)