J.D.C., 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 the trial court erred by entering a single disposition order for multiple offenses and failing to comply with rule requirements.
J.D.C. was adjudicated delinquent for battery, assault, and obstruction. The trial court entered one disposition order for all offenses, failing to sp…
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 Obstructing Or Opposing An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
J.D.C. appeals his adjudication and commitment for battery on a specified official or employee, assault on a specified official or employee, and obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging that there are no grounds for reversal but suggesting that remand is required for correction of the disposition order. We agree that reversal of the disposition order is required.
J.D.C. was adjudicated delinquent for three separate offenses; two were first-degree misdemeanors and one was a third-degree felony. See §§ 784.081(3), (4), 843.02, Fla. Stat. (2000). The trial court entered one order adjudicating J.D.C. delinquent for' all three offenses. Neither the order nor a separate order entitled “Findings in Support of Disposition Order” identify J.D.C.’s age or the degree and maximum penalty for each of these offenses as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(c)(1), (2).
Because multiple offenses constitute the basis of the delinquency adjudication, the trial court must enter a separate disposition order for each offense that does not impose commitment beyond the comparable adult sanction and that complies with the requirements of rule 8.115(c). See D.S.S. v. State, 806 So. 2d 554, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); A.B. v. State, 805 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency, reverse the disposition order, and remand for the trial court to enter separate orders of disposition for each offense.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.V. v. State, 863 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…n orders for each offense. The disposition orders must specify the degree of the offense, the maximum penalty, and that the commitment is limited to one year, the maximum adult sentence for each of the first-degree misdemeanors. See J.D.C. v. State, 841 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); F.N.S. v. State, 807 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). G.V. also argues that the disposition order is deficient for the additional reason that the trial judge did not enter written findings of the facts upon which the adjudicatio…
-
V.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…8.115(c); G.V. v. State, 863 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Further, each disposition order must specify the age of the child, identify the degree of the offense, and identify the maximum penalty provided by statute. Id.; see also J.D.C. v. State, 841 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). To avoid multiple appealable orders, normally an adjudication of delinquency and a disposition order are combined in a single order. This error was not preserved in the trial court by the filing of a motion pursuant to [*304] r…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- A.B. v. State, 805 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- D.S.S. v. State, 806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)