S.B., 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 disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court, and an order entered after a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction is invalid.
A juvenile committed new offenses while on community control, leading to adjudication of delinquency. The trial court attempted to amend disposition o…
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 Jurisdiction Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
S.B., a juvenile, appeals the disposition orders entered by the trial court. We reverse.
While on community control in three cases for offenses committed in 2000, S.B. committed two additional offenses in 2001 and the court adjudicated him delinquent for them. The new convictions also served to violate the terms of the previously imposed community control. The five offenses represented three felonies and two misdemeanors. After adjudicating him delinquent, the court placed Appellant in a high risk residential program operated under the auspices of the Department of Juvenile Justice to be followed, upon completion, by conditional release.
None of the original orders specified the maximum allowable«time that Appellant must spend under the control of the department. On July 16, 2002, the court amended its orders addressing this problem but, as Appellant had already filed his notice of appeal, it was entered at a time when the court was without jurisdiction and is, therefore, invalid.
A disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court. M.N. v. State, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). This requirement is particularly important where, as here, the offenses range from second degree felonies down to second degree misdemeanors. We, therefore, vacate each of the disposition orders entered and remand with instructions to specify the period of commitment for each offense, not to exceed either the maximum adult sentence for the individual charge or the date when Appellant attains his majority, at which time the department will lose jurisdiction over him.
On remand, we point out that the trial court should enter a separate disposition order for each offense. A.B. v. State, 805 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); P.J.C. v. State, 730 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SALCINES, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Q.K. v. State, 945 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…a term of probation that follows, may not run longer than the statutory maximum allowed by law. I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230, 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “A disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court.” S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing M.N. v. State, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (remanding “with instructions to specify the period of commitment, not to exceed the maximum adult sentence for the charge”)). “[LJanguage committing a juvenile for an inde…
-
A.S.B. v. State, 59 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…State, 675 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In such an instance, the disposition order must be reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an order that specifies the period of commitment actually imposed by the court. See S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); L.W.G., 785 So. 2d at 696-97 (reversing for entry of disposition orders that specifically limited the period of commitment to the applicable statutory maximum); R.P., 695 So. 2d at 490 (reversing for entry of a disposition o…
-
B.G. v. State, 137 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…amount of time served in secure detention before disposition.” This court has held that a “disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court.” Q.K. v. State, 945 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); see [*549] also J.A.W. v. State, 873 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“The disposition order must clearly articulate the maximum length of commitment.”). The disposition order committing B.G. failed to specify the statutory…
Authorities Cited
- Huskins v. State, 730 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- A.B. v. State, 805 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Hopo Corp. v. Keller, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- M.N. v. State, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)