T.C.F., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 trial court erred in placing T.C.F. in secure detention for 21 days after violating home detention, as the relevant statute authorizes only five days.
T.C.F. was adjudicated delinquent and placed in home detention pending facility placement. After violating home detention, the trial court ordered 21 …
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 Home Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
T.C.F., arguing that the trial court improperly placed him in secure detention for 21 days after violating the terms of his home detention, seeks from this court a writ of habeas corpus. We grant his petition.
T.C.F. was adjudicated delinquent and committed to a moderate risk facility. While awaiting placement in an appropriate facility, he was temporarily placed in home detention. When the trial court later found that T.C.F. violated the terms of his home detention, the court then placed him in secure detention for 21 days. T.C.F.’s counsel objected, arguing that the maximum amount of time in secure detention authorized by statute was only five days. T.C.F. now seeks relief in this court. Upon violation of home detention in these circumstances, section 985.215(10)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), plainly authorizes a placement of only five days in secure detention. Thus, the trial court’s placement of 21 days in the instant case is erroneous. On facts indistinguishable from those in the instant case, our sister courts in T.W. v. Edwards-Ellis, 903 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) and J.B. v. Rayford, 707 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) held that habeas corpus relief was warranted. We further note that in response to our order to show cause, the state candidly admits that the trial court’s placement of T.C.F. in secure detention for 21 days is contrary to Florida law.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and order that T.C.F. be released from secure detention immediately.
PETITION GRANTED.
SHARP, W., MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.L.W. v. State, 931 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…as before the court, for a total of twenty days. As there was only one violation of home detention, it was improper under section 985.215(10)(b), Florida Statutes, to impose any term of secure detention which exceeded five days. See T.C.F. v. State, 929 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); T.W. v. Edwards-Ellis, 903 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); J.B. v. Rayford, 707 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We therefore grant the petition and order that the child be immediately released from secure detention, as he has se…
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. Rayford, 707 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- T.W. v. Edwards-Ellis, 903 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)