C.H., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile court imposed Drug Court supervision on C.H. without including it as a condition in the original probation order or plea agreement. The appellate court held that only the trial court may set probation conditions and cannot delegate this authority to probation officers, and absent a probation violation, no additional conditions may be imposed.
Drug Court supervision was improperly imposed because it was not ordered by the trial court and not part of the plea agreement. Only the court may set probation conditions, and absent an alleged violation and a hearing finding of violation, no additional conditions may be added to probation.
[1] A court may not delegate its responsibility to set the conditions of probation to a probation officer.
[2] A court is without authority to add a condition of probation after withholding adjudication and placing a child on probation under specified conditions, unless a violatio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Only the court may set the conditions of probation and it may not delegate its responsibility to a probation officer.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts retain exclusive authority to impose probation conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.H. pled no contest to a delinquency petition and the trial court withheld adjudication, placing him on probation for up to one year with conditions …
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, C.H. pled no contest to a petition for delinquency. The trial court withheld adjudication and ordered C.H. to be placed on juvenile probation up to a maximum of one year. As part of the probation he was ordered to participate in an assessment through the Juvenile Assessment Team and complete any recommended therapy or treatment. The disposition order had a specific provision for imposing Drug Court supervision which the court did not elect to impose as a condition of probation.
C.H. was recommended for direct referral for substance abuse treatment, but when he was unable to continue treatment at one facility because it could not handle C.H.’s mental health needs, he was to be placed in another treatment facility. While awaiting entry into the new facility, a drug court officer determined that C.H. needed supervision and imposed Drug Court monitoring.
C.H. filed a Motion to Terminate Drug Court Supervision arguing that it was not a term of the plea agreement and the trial court had not ordered it. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. C.H. filed this appeal.
Drug Court supervision was not a condition of C.H.’s probation that was ordered by the court. Only the court may set the conditions of probation and it may not delegate its responsibility to a probation officer. See In re T.L.D., 586 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Where a court withholds adjudication and places a child on probation under specified conditions, a court is without authority to add a condition of probation unless and until a violation is alleged and after a hearing a violation is determined to have been committed. See § 985.228(4), Fla. Stat. (2001); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.120; see also Delancey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (modification of probation, adding additional requirement of probation absent a violation constitutes an improper enhancement, not a modification, of defendant’s original sentence and violates double jeopardy principles). We reverse the denial of C.H.’s motion and remand for the trial court to terminate Drug Court supervision.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Delancey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- In the Interest of T.L.D., 586 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)