STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
P.P., A CHILD, 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 the statutes mandating detention and driver's license revocation for minors committing firearm offenses are mandatory and must be applied by the trial court.
A seventeen-year-old minor was charged with firearm offenses. The trial court dismissed one charge and failed to impose mandatory detention and driver…
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 Driver'S License Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellee, a seventeen year old, was charged with carrying a concealed firearm, unlawfully exhibiting a handgun, and unlawfully discharging a handgun. The trial court on its own dismissed the charge of carrying a concealed firearm. After appel-lee pled guilty to the other charges, the court failed to sentence him to five days of secured detention and also failed to revoke or suspend his driver’s license, both of which are mandatory. The state appeals the dismissal and the illegal sentence. We reverse.
Section 790.22(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), requires a minor who has committed an offense involving the use or possession of a firearm to “serve a mandatory period of detention of five days in a secure detention facility.”
In addition, section 790.22(10)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that if a minor violates section 790.22(9), the court “shall” direct the revocation or the withholding of issuance of the minor’s driver’s license or driving privileges for a period of up to one year. Although the state called the trial court’s attention to these statutes, the court did not order detention or suspension of appellee’s driver’s license. We agree with the state that the statutes are mandatory and reverse.
The state also argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge of carrying a concealed handgun, based only on the facts contained in the probable cause affidavit. We agree with the state that the trial court erred in dismissing this charge on its own. The dismissal is also subject to reversal on the merits, because the allegation in the affidavit that appellee placed a handgun in his pocket in the presence of an officer is sufficient to sustain the charge of carrying a concealed firearm. Ambrister v. State, 462 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We therefore reverse the dismissal of count I.
STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.Z., 957 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…dential program, section 790.22(9) mandates that the court “shall order ... that the minor shall serve a minimum period of detention of fifteen days in a secure detention facility.” The language of section 790.22(9) is mandatory. See State v. P.P., 763 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); State v. S.T., 803 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As this Court previously observed in T.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997): The statute is obviously designed to get the immediate attention of all juveniles an…
-
State v. S.A. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ee also State v. I.J., 258 So. 3d 473, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); State v. C.R., 959 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State v. R.C.S., 837 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); State v. S.T., 803 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); State v. P.P., 763 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (all holding that language of section 790.22(9) is mandatory and failure to impose mandatory sentence on juvenile was erroneous). When the trial court inquired about credit for time served, the State correctly noted that th…
Authorities Cited
- Ambrister v. State, 462 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)