D.G., 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.
D.G. appeals his juvenile delinquency disposition and placement on probation. The court affirms the disposition, finding no error where special conditions of probation appeared in the written order but were not orally pronounced, as Florida law does not require oral pronouncement of juvenile dispositions.
Due process does not require oral pronouncement of juvenile delinquency dispositions or special conditions of probation. The written disposition order combined with Rule 8.135's provision allowing juveniles to file objections to dispositions adequately protects due process rights.
[1] Due process does not require an oral pronouncement of a juvenile delinquency disposition.
[2] A juvenile's due process rights regarding disposition are adequately protected by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135, which allows for objections to the disposition…
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“due process does not require an oral pronouncement of a delinquency disposition”
Establishes the core holding that written orders satisfy constitutional requirements in juvenile cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.G. received a delinquency disposition and was placed on juvenile probation. The disposition order contained special conditions of probation that wer…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
D.G. appeals his delinquency disposition and his placement on juvenile probation. The assistant public defender has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because there are no arguable issues on appeal. This court permitted D.G. to file an initial brief, but he did not do so. We have reviewed the record on appeal and affirm.
The assistant public defender argues that special conditions of probation which appeared in the disposition order but were not orally pronounced is a minor sentencing error in this case which may be raised in an Anders brief. . Appellate counsel preserved these issues by filing a motion pursuant to rule 8.135. We agree that, following the filing of an Anders brief, minor sentencing errors may be corrected by this court ordering remand to the trial court, see Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), but, in the instant case, we find no error requiring correction.
In N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So. 2d 990 (Fla.2004), the Supreme Court of Florida agreed with this court that due process does not require an oral pronouncement of a delinquency disposition. N.C. determined that a juvenile’s due process rights are adequately protected by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135, which allows a juvenile to file objections to the disposition even while an appeal is pending. This provision, which mimics rule 3.800(b) in adult criminal procedure, was added to the juvenile procedure rules in 2002. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.135 & 8.510, 816 So. 2d 536 (Fla.2002) (explaining that the amendment was necessitated by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996). According to N.C., due process is protected by the written disposition order (notice) and rule 8.135’s provisions for filing objections to a disposition (opportunity to be heard). Unlike the adult criminal procedure rules, which require oral pronouncement of sentence, the Rules of Juvenile Procedure do not require oral pronouncement of the disposition. Compare Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.700(b) with Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(c).
Since conditions of probation are a part of the disposition order, see rule 8.115(c)(3), we conclude that N.C. has com pletely abrogated our prior case law finding error where special conditions of probation were not orally pronounced at the disposition hearing. See, e.g., I.B. v. State, 806 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that special conditions of juvenile probation must be orally pronounced).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 229 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ntencing order. See Johnson v. State, 944 So. 2d 474, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Lyons v. State, 837 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); I.B. v. State, 806 So. 2d 610, 612-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), abrogated on other grounds as stated in D.G. v. State, 896 So. 2d 920, 921-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Indeed, this court has explicitly rejected the Second District’s contrary decision in Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which does impose such a requirement. See I.B., 806 So. 2d at 612-13 (rejecting…
-
N.j.p v. State, 308 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…§ 938.29, Fla. Stat. (2018). 1 Although Fain involved a motion to correct a sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) is the juvenile version of that rule. See D.G. v. State, 896 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to the defendant. However, the trial court is required to give the defendant notice of the imposition of discretionary costs and to make an oral pronouncement of…
-
King v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…tate, 806 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[T]he record clearly reflects that the court stated the amount and basis for the statutorily authorized public defender fees and costs imposed.”), abrogated on other grounds as stated in D.G. v. State, 896 So. 2d 920, 921–22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).2 As one might expect, some of Florida’s courts, including the first and second districts, have also remanded cost orders for citation to local authority. See, e.g., Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 20…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2004)
- I.B. v. State, 806 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- AMENDMENTS TO FLA. RULES OF JUV. PROCEDURE 8.135 & 8.510, 816 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2002)
- Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)