L.K., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, RESPONDENT
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 held that the 15-day detention period under section 985.215(5)(d) is calculated in calendar days and does not exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
[1] The power to place juveniles in detention is entirely statutory, requiring strict compliance with statutory provisions.
[2] A statute providing a specific time limit for detention, which does not explicitly exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, is to be computed using calendar days.
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 intelligenceA juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and ordered held in secure detention. The disposition hearing was scheduled beyond the 15-day statutory limit, w…
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 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We previously granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus by an unpublished order and now write to explain our reasons for granting relief.
Petitioner, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for violation of probation on October 5, 2005, and ordered to be held in secure detention pending a disposition hearing scheduled for October 27, 2005. Petitioner objected and argued that the disposition date was set past the statutory maximum of 15 days allowed for a child held in detention under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice. § 985.215(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). The trial court overruled petitioner’s objection finding that Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded from calculating the 15-day detention period.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief arguing that the time allowed for secure detention under section 985.215(5)(d) meant 15 calendar days and cited to H.L. v. Woolsey, 618 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Petitioner pointed out that the 15-day detention period provided for in section 985.215(5)(d) does not provide for the exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, whereas, another subsection of the same statute, section 985.215(10)(a)l., does exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when calculating the time a child may be held in secure detention when awaiting placement in a moderate-risk residential program.
The state asserted that the trial court relied on section 985.215(5)(f) in calculating the detention period, and reasoned that because subsection (5)(f) excludes Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when a continuance for cause is granted, the legislature must have intended to also exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when calculating the detention time allowed after adjudication under subsection (5)(d).
The power to placé juveniles charged with, or found to have committed, a delinquent act in detention is entirely statutory in nature. S.W. v. Woolsey, 673 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Therefore, strict compliance with' the statute is required. W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); A.S. v. Byrd, 777 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also L.K. v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that notwithstanding the child’s acquiescence in a longer period of detention, the plain language of section 985.215(10)(a)l. forbids the trial judge from ordering detention in excess of 15 days after commitment). Section 985.215(5)(d) states that “a child may not be held in secure, nonsecure, or home detention care for more than 15 days following the entry of an order of adjudication.” Part I of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure applies to delinquency cases. With two exceptions not applicable here,1 rule 8.180(a) provides that in computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by the rules, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be counted, unless it is Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor a legal holiday. Rule 8.180(a) further provides that when the period of time prescribed or allowed shall be less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded from the computation.
The trial court read sections 985.215(5)(d) and (5)(f) together to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays from the computation of time for secure detention after adjudication, but before disposition. Section 985.215(5)(f) states:
The time limits in paragraphs (c) and (d) do not include periods of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court for cause on motion of the child or his or her counsel or of the state. Upon the issuance of an order granting a continuance for cause on a motion by either the child, the child’s counsel, or the state, the court shall conduct a hearing at the end of each 72-hour period, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, to determine the need for continued detention of the child and the need for further continuance of proceedings for the child or the state.
Here, no motion for continuance for cause was filed by either party or granted by the trial court pursuant to section 985.215(5)(f) and it appears that the exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays in that subsection applies to calculating the time for the hearings to be held every 72 hours to determine the need for continued detention of the child.
As stated, we must strictly construe the juvenile detention statute. Unlike section 985.215(10)(a)l., section 985.215(5)(d) does not provide for the exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when calculating the 15-day detention period following the entry of an order of adjudication. It is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have been excluded intentionally. Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So. 2d 146, 152 (Fla.1997); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Because the 15-day detention period allowed by section 985.215(5)(d) exceeds 7 days, rule 8.180 would not exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays from the time computation. For these reasons, we granted relief.
WEBSTER, BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., concur. . Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.013 and 8.010. Those rules concern the original detention hearing, petition and order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. OF N. Fla., 133 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…includes wording in one section of a statute and not in another, it is presumed to have been intentionally excluded. See Bd. of Trs. of Fla. State Univ. v. Esposito, 991 So. 2d 924, 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). The judiciary cannot extend the terms of an unambiguous statute beyond its express terms or reasonable and obvious implications under Florida’s strict separation of powers delineated in article II, section three, of the Fl…
-
In re Commitment OF Stephen Allen. Stephen Allen v. State, 927 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ce.” (Emphasis added.) The omission of the emphasized language from section 394.918(3) suggests that the legislature did not intend that the State have the burden of proof at the limited probable cause hearing. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“It is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have b…
-
J.D. v. State, 954 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…e detention, as appropriate. The power to place juveniles charged with or found to have committed a delinquent act into detention is entirely statutory in nature. Strict compliance with the statute is required. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 917 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Here, the consecutive detention periods imposed upon J.D. were in violation of the statutory limitations, and the order entered by the trial court making that improp…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Beach v. Great W. Bank, 692 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1997)
- Jones v. State, 673 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- L.K. v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- A.S. v. Byrd, 777 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- In the Interest of H.L. v. Woolsey, 618 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)