B.T.S., 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.
Court reversed a habitual juvenile offender designation and commitment order because the State failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) by not requesting the designation until after the disposition hearing and oral pronouncement.
The State's failure to request a habitual juvenile offender designation prior to the trial court's pronouncement of disposition violates Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) and requires reversal.
[1] A habitual juvenile offender designation must be requested by the State prior to the trial court's pronouncement of disposition to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Pr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.T.S. was adjudicated delinquent and designated a habitual juvenile offender with commitment to high-risk residential placement, but the State did no…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
B.T.S. appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent, finding him to be a habitual juvenile offender1 and committing him to a high-risk residential commitment with the Department of Juvenile Justice. B.T.S. argues, and the State concedes, that the State and the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)2 before imposing the habitual juvenile offender designation. In fact, the State did not request this sanction until days after the disposition hearing and the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the disposition. We therefore reverse the disposition order and remand this case. We do not decide, at this time, whether the State’s failure to seek this designation pri-or to the trial court’s pronouncement and the trial court’s failure to pronounce the imposition of such a sanction preclude the imposition of the sanction on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and WHATLEY, JJ„ Concur. . See § 985.03(47), Fla. Stat. (2000).
. B.T.S.'s disposition hearing was held in July 2000. We note that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) was amended effective January 1, 2001. In re: Amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 783 So. 2d 138 (Fla.2000). The amendment deleted all provisions related to placement of a child as a serious or habitual juvenile offender. It appears that there is now no statutory-or rule-based procedure for providing a child with notice of the potential imposition of this sanction.