THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
R.C.S., A JUVENILE, 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 State appeals a trial court's disposition order that placed a juvenile on probation with community service but failed to impose a mandatory 15-day detention requirement for a firearm-related offense. The appellate court reversed, holding that the mandatory detention provision applies whenever a juvenile is involved in a crime involving use of a firearm, regardless of the degree of involvement.
The court held that the mandatory 15-day detention provision applies to any juvenile involved in a crime involving the use of a firearm, regardless of the degree of involvement or whether the juvenile had actual possession. The statute's language regarding 'use' of a firearm is unambiguous and does not require personal possession as a prerequisite to the mandatory penalty.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to impose the mandatory minimum detention period required by statute for a juvenile offense involving the use or possess…
[2] A juvenile's involvement as a lookout in a crime that involves the use of a firearm is sufficient to trigger the mandatory minimum detention provision of section 790.22(9…
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“the legislature purposely intended the mandatory minimum detention provision of that section to act as an example of what might lie ahead should one persist in further criminal activity”
Establishes the court's interpretation of legislative intent behind the mandatory detention requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.C.S., a juvenile, entered a plea of nolo contendere to armed burglary with a firearm and theft of a firearm. At the disposition hearing, the juvenil…
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 Appeal From Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Senior Judge.
The State appeals a final order entered by the trial court placing juvenile R.C.S. on probation, and ordering, among other things, that the juvenile complete 100 hours of community service. The State maintains that the trial court erred in failing to sentence the juvenile to a minimum period of fifteen days in a secured detention facility, as required by section 790.22(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).1
The juvenile entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to armed burglary with a firearm and theft of a firearm. At the disposition hearing which followed, the juvenile’s counsel attempted to go behind the plea and claim that the boy was only in constructive possession of the firearm at issue because he acted solely as a lookout. Thus, counsel maintained, the mandatory detention provision of section 790.22(9)(a), did not have to be applied. Over the State’s objection, the trial judge accepted the juvenile’s position, and failed to enter the mandatory detention. The State claims that in so ruling, the trial court committed per se reversible error, and we agree.
We are of the view that the legislature purposely intended the mandatory minimum detention provision of that section to act as an example of what might lie ahead should one persist in further criminal activity. We reject the juvenile’s argument that we should analogize section 790.22(9), with section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1999).2 Moreover, we do not think there is any ambiguity present because the subsection at issue expressly provides for such penalty for the “use” of a firearm. Here, even though the juvenile acted only as a lookout, he was involved in a crime which involved the use of a weapon. This was sufficient to mandate the minimum fifteen day detention at issue. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for additional sentencing.
. Section 790.22 provides in part:
(9) 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; and
1. Perform 100 hours of community service; and may
2. Be placed on community control or in a nonresidential commitment program. (Emphasis added.)
. See State v. Rodriguez, 602 So. 2d 1270 (Fla.1992)(concluding defendant's sentence could not be enhanced under section 775.087(1), without evidence of personal possession of the weapon at issue).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.O. v. State, 25 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…tate deems their firearm offenses to be serious enough to warrant the automatic deprivation of their liberty for a period of time, even on a first offense’ ” (quoting T.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997))); see also State v. R.C.S., 837 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (stating that “the legislature purposely intended the mandatory minimum detention provision of [section 790.22(9) ] to act as an example of what might lie ahead should one persist in further criminal activity”); T.M., 689 So.…
-
State v. I.J., 258 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
State v. C.R., 959 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…t all the codefen-dants fairly and consistently, we agree with the State that the trial court had no discretion to refuse to impose the mandatory fifteen-day detention on C.R. See State v. R.L.S., 712 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. R.C.S., 837 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). We likewise have no choice but to follow the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the disposition order and remand with directions that the trial court impose the term of detention required by section 790.22(9) in addition to any ot…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Anibal Rodriguez, 602 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1992)