A.W., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State filed a Petition for Delinquency charging A.W., a juvenile, with two counts of aggravated battery. A.W. was found guilty of a lesser charge of battery on Count I and found guilty of aggravated battery on Count II. The trial court entered a Disposition Order adjudicating A.W. delinquent and committing him to a high-risk, level 8 residential program. A.W. appeals the Disposition Order and argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter separate disposition orders for the two offenses. The State concedes and agrees that the matter should be remanded with instructions to enter separate disposition orders for the two,offenses. See L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that when a trial court adjudicates a juvenile delinquent for more than one offense, separate disposition orders must be entered for each adjudicated offense).
..REMANDED.
STONE, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanislaw Matajek v. Leokadia Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…the parties. The failure to consider these factors frustrates meaningful review of the trial court’s award of alimony and constitutes reversible error. Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127, 1130-31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Peterson v. Peterson, 882 So. 2d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The marriage lasted 20 years. The trial court must begin with a rebuttable presumption in favor of an award of permanent alimony. Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004, 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Even so, the court must determine…
-
Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ns, 839 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Once the case is decided on appeal, the circuit court is bound by the decree as the law of the case and is required to perform the purely ministerial act of implementing the mandate. Peterson v. Peterson, 882 So. 2d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In this case, the mandate required the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine only whether Weiland had committed a fraud on the court, as Robinson alleged, and, if so, to conduct a new trial. Because th…
-
Ami Shinitzky v. Shinitzky, 82 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…nal Judgment. See Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla.1975) (“A trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.”); Peterson v. Peterson, 882 So. 2d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“ ‘[0]nce the ... case was decided on appeal, the circuit court was bound by the decree as the law of the case and was required to perform the purely ministerial act of implementing the mandate.’ ”). Despite the successor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)