M.H., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 reversed and remanded because the adjudicatory and commitment orders erroneously stated M.H. was found guilty of attempted armed robbery when the trial court's oral pronouncement established the lesser offense of attempted strong arm robbery, and the predisposition report contained additional errors that may have affected disposition.
Written adjudicatory and commitment orders must be amended to conform to the trial court's controlling oral pronouncement, and when predisposition reports contain errors, the case must be remanded for a corrected report and new disposition hearing.
[1] The trial court's oral pronouncement of the offense of adjudication is controlling over written orders that contradict it, and written orders must be amended to conform t…
[2] When a predisposition report contains errors that may have affected the trial court's disposition decision, the case must be remanded for preparation of an accurate repor…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.H., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a moderate risk residential program. The written …
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from orders finding that M.H. committed a felony and committing him to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice, to be placed in a moderate risk residential program. We reverse.
A review of the record reveals that both the adjudicatory order and the commitment order in this case erroneously reflect that M.H. was found guilty of attempted armed robbery. However, the trial court’s oral pronouncement, which is controlling, was that M.H. committed the lesser offense of attempted strong arm robbery. As the State properly concedes, these documents must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement. See S.F. v. State, 866 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); B.R.W. v. State, 799 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Furthermore, it appears from our review of the record that the predisposition report, which the court relied upon at M.H.’s disposition hearing, erroneously indicates an adjudication of completed strong arm robbery. We are of the view that this too should be corrected.
Since it cannot be determined from the record whether these errors affected the trial court’s disposition of this case, we remand for the preparation of a completely accurate predisposition report, followed by a new disposition hearing.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B.R.W. v. State, 799 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- S.F. v. State, 866 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)