B.R.W., 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.
B.R.W., a juvenile, appealed his adjudication of delinquency for burglary, petit theft, opposing an officer without violence, and criminal mischief. The court affirmed the adjudication but remanded to correct the disposition order, which incorrectly reflected the criminal mischief conviction as a first-degree misdemeanor rather than a second-degree misdemeanor as pronounced at trial.
The court affirmed the adjudication of delinquency but remanded for correction of the disposition order. The disposition order must be corrected to reflect that B.R.W. was found guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor for criminal mischief consistent with the trial court's oral ruling, and the corrected order must separately identify the maximum commitment period imposed for each offense to ensure compliance with statutory maximums.
[1] A disposition order must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of guilt regarding a specific offense.
[2] When the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to establish a felony charge, a defendant may be found guilty of a lesser degree misdemeanor for that offense.
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“On the issue of felony criminal mischief, I think the State was not able to establish that. So I think there is evidence to believe that second degree criminal mischief — as to the other charges, I deny the motions to dismiss.”
Trial court's oral ruling at the conclusion of the State's case, establishing that the criminal mischief conviction should be for second-degree misdemeanor, not felony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.R.W. was charged with burglary of a structure, petit theft, opposing an officer without violence, and criminal mischief (originally charged as a thi…
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 Second-Degree Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
B.R.W. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for burglary of a structure, petit theft, opposing an officer without violence, and criminal mischief. We affirm the adjudication without comment but remand for correction of the disposition order. During trial, after the State completed its presentation of evidence, defense counsel requested a judgment of acquittal on all counts. The trial court denied the request except, as to the criminal mischief charge, the judge stated, “On the issue of felony criminal mischief, I think the State was not able to establish that. So I think there is evidence to believe that second degree criminal mischief — as to the other charges, I deny the motions to dismiss.”
At the conclusion of the trial, the judge orally pronounced B.R.W. “guilty as charged.” Defense counsel asked, “Just for clarification, Your Honor, it’s guilty on charges 1, 3 and 4, and then guilty of the lesser on count 2?” The judge responded, “That’s correct.” Count 2, for criminal mischief, was originally charged as a third-degree felony.
The disposition order listed criminal mischief as a first-degree misdemean-or. B.R.W. argues that because there was no proof concerning the amount of damages in connection with the criminal mischief charge, the disposition order must be corrected to reflect a second-degree misdemeanor. The State concedes that the disposition order conflicted with the trial court’s oral ruling. Based on the evidence and the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we agree that the disposition order must be corrected to reflect that B.R.W. was found guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor for criminal mischief. See Murph v. State, 666 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); A.R. v. State, 504 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); § 806.13(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (2000).
Additionally, the single disposition order utilized in this case does not separately identify the maximum commitment period imposed on each of the offenses. Because the maximum period of commitment for the four offenses differs between the misdemeanors and the felony, the term of commitment per offense should be indicated in the disposition order to insure that it is within the statutory maximum.
Therefore, we affirm the adjudication and disposition but remand with instructions that the trial court enter a corrected disposition order consistent with this opinion.
CASANUEVA, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.H. v. State, 873 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…s that M.H. committed the lesser offense of attempted strong arm robbery. As the State properly concedes, these documents must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement. See S.F. v. State, 866 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); B.R.W. v. State, 799 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Furthermore, it appears from our review of the record that the predisposition report, which the court relied upon at M.H.’s disposition hearing, erroneously indicates an adjudication of completed strong arm robbery. We are of the…
Authorities Cited
- Timonere v. State, 666 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Thompson v. State, 666 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- A.R. v. State, 504 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Williams v. In the Interest of W.T., 504 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)