STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
S.T., 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 trial court erred in crediting the juvenile with fifteen days for time served in detention for firearm offenses when the statute mandates a minimum detention period.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft and burglary involving firearms and placed on community control. The trial court credited the ju…
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 Firearm Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court adjudicated appellee delinquent for the offenses of grand theft and burglary of a dwelling. Among the items stolen in the burglary were two firearms. The trial court did not commit appellee to a residential commitment program for these offenses, but rather placed him on community control under the Department of Juvenile Justice for the maximum term of fifteen years. The State contends that the trial court erred when it credited appellee with fifteen days for time served in detention. We agree, and reverse.
Section 790.22(9), Florida Statutes (2000), provides:
Notwithstanding s. 985.214, if the minor is found to have committed an offense that involves the use or possession of a firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, other than a violation of subsection (3), or an offense during the commission of which the minor possessed a firearm, and the minor is not committed to a residential commitment program of the Department of Juvenile Justice, in addition to any other punishment provided by law, the court shall order:
(a) For a first offense, that the minor shall serve a minimum period of detention of 15 days in a secure detention facility;....
(Emphasis added.) Section 790.22(9) also provides:
The minor shall not receive credit for time served before adjudication. For the purposes of this subsection, commu nity service shall be performed, if possible, in a manner involving a hospital emergency room or other medical environment that deals on a regular basis with trauma patients and gunshot wounds.
We are not persuaded by appellee’s argument that because he had been committed to and was awaiting placement in a residential program as the result of a prior offense, the statute does not apply to him. The language of the statute is mandatory.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to delete the provision for fifteen days credit for time served from the disposition order. REVERSED AND REMANDED
DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, 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)…e 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 and to issue a “wake-up call” that the [*47] state de…
-
B.O. v. State, 25 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…CIKLIN, J., concurring specially. I join the majority opinion but write separately to address- the dissent, which claims that our holding in State v. S. T., 803 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) was ignored by the majority and warrants a different outcome in this case. In S. T, a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft and burglary of a dwelling when he stole, among other things, two firearms. Id. While awai…1 / 2
-
State v. S.A. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…re detention facility. § 790.22(9), Fla. Stat. (2018); see 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 c…