Y.J., 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.
Y.J., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and placed on probation. She appealed arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for acquittal and abused its discretion by adjudicating her delinquent without stating facts supporting that disposition. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that when a juvenile is merely adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation (rather than committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice), no statutory requirement exists for the trial court to make specific findings regarding the adjudication decision.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion for acquittal because sufficient evidence established a prima facie case of burglary. The court also affirmed the adjudication without specific findings, holding that when a juvenile is only adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation (not committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice), no statutory requirement for specific findings exists; the required findings relate only to the determination of guilt, not to the adjudication disposition decision.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's admission to entering a location and taking items without permission establishes a prima facie case of burglary.
[2] A trial court is not required to make specific findings supporting its decision to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent when the juvenile is placed on probation and not commi…
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 evidence presented at trial established a prima facie case of burglary and supported the trial court's finding that Y.J. unlawfully entered the girls' locker room with the intent to commit a theft therein”
Establishes that sufficient evidence supported the burglary adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceY.J. was charged with burglary of the girls' locker room at Plantation High School. At trial, evidence established that Y.J. admitted to entering the …
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 Intent To Steal cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Y.J. was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation for burglary of the girls’ locker room at Plantation High School. Y.J. appeals the adjudication, contending that the trial court erred in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal and abused its discretion in adjudicating her delinquent without stating any facts to support its decision to adjudicate her instead of withholding adjudication.
We affirm the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence presented at trial established a pri- ma facie case of burglary and supported the trial court’s finding that Y.J. unlawfully entered the girls’ locker room with the intent to commit a theft therein. Among the evidence presented at trial was testimony that Y.J. admitted to entering the locker room and to taking items from the lockers without permission.
We also affirm the trial court’s decision to adjudicate Y.J. delinquent without making any specific findings for the adjudication. Although failure to make specific findings before adjudication and commitment of a juvenile is reversible error,1 where the court, as here, merely adjudicates the child delinquent and places her on probation without committing her to the Department of Juvenile Justice, there is no statutory requirement for specific findings. See F.N. v. State, 745 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As we explained in F.N.:
[Sjection 985.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), did not require the trial court to make specific findings of its reasons for deciding to adjudicate the defendant to be delinquent. That subsection applies when a court determines “that the child should be adjudicated as having committed a delinquent act and should be committed to the [Department of Juvenile Justice].” Id. (emphasis added).
In urging reversal of the delinquency adjudication, Y.J. relies upon the fifth district’s holding in L.R. v. State, 832 So. 2d 875, 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). There, the court, in applying section 985.228, Florida Statutes (2000), stated that “in circumstances where an adjudication is entered, the trial court must state briefly the facts upon which the adjudication was based.” We, however, do not read section 985.228 to impose such a requirement.
The relevant portions of the statute are subsection (4), which provides for the withholding of adjudication, and subsection (5), which governs the entry of adjudication. These subsections provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
(4) If the court finds that the child named in the petition has committed a delinquent act or violation of law, it may, in its discretion, enter an order stating the facts upon which its finding is based but withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing the child in a probation program under the supervision of the department or under the supervision of any other person or agency specifically authorized and appointed by the court....
(5) If the court finds that the child named in a petition has committed a delinquent act or violation of law, but elects not to proceed under subsection (4), it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication of delinquency entered in the case, briefly stating the facts upon which the finding is made, and the court shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to deal with the child as adjudicated.
(emphasis added)
We do not read subsection (5) as requiring the trial court to make findings for its decision to adjudicate the child delinquent. Instead,, we interpret it as requiring the court to incorporate its finding that the child committed a delinquent act or violation of law into the order of adjudication, and to give a brief statement of the facts upon which it based its finding that the child committed a delinquent act or violation of law. In our view, the required factual findings relate to the court’s deter mination of guilt and not to its ultimate disposition on delinquency. We acknowledge conflict between the fifth district and our district on this issue.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency and disposition entered by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . See T.N. v. State, 786 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); J.M. v. State, 692 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.R. v. State, 978 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…le Justice Pre-Disposition Report upon which the court relied, failed to make specific findings as to the reasons for adjudicating and committing C.R. to the Department of Juvenile Justice, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See Y.J. v. State, 874 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA [*836] 2004) (“[FJailure to make specific findings before adjudication and commitment of a juvenile is reversible error.”). See also § 985.23, Fla. Stat. (2005). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- J.M. v. State, 692 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- F.N. v. State, 745 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- L.R. v. State, 832 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Vazquez v. State, 786 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- T.N. v. State, 786 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)