J.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 held that a nunc pro tunc order cannot add a condition (aftercare) that was not originally pronounced or included in the written disposition order, as this exceeds the scope of correcting clerical errors.
Appellant was ordered to level 6 commitment. The original order did not include aftercare. A successor judge later entered a nunc pro tunc order addin…
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 Clerical Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order entered November 9, 2000, nunc pro tunc, February 25, 1999, ordering him placed in aftercare following successful completion of level 6 commitment. We reverse.
The trial court originally ordered Appellant to level 6 commitment. Although recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice, the trial court made no oral pronouncement of aftercare and did not order aftercare in its written order. A successor judge entered an order nunc pro tunc, correcting what was perceived to be a clerical mistake in the original disposition order. The new order revised the disposition order by requiring Appellant to successfully complete aftercare as part of his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
As we recently ruled in L.S. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 779 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135 allows for corrections of clerical errors, but does not authorize entry of orders not previously made. Id. at 634. “The written disposition order did not specify aftercare, nor did the trial judge orally pronounce that condition. This omission is not a clerical error which can be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc.” Id. at 635.
Accordingly, we reverse the November 9, 2000 order, entered nunc pro tunc February 25,1999.
REVERSED.
BOOTH, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.