D.T.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.T.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated for unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor and placed on probation with 75 hours of community service. The State attempted to modify the sentence to 100 hours after D.T.C. filed his notice of appeal, but the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this motion under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(a). The appellate court affirmed the original order.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State's motion to modify the sentence because Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(a) prohibits a party from filing a motion to correct a disposition order during the pendency of a direct appeal. The original September 8, 2005 order imposing 75 hours of community service was therefore affirmed.
[1] A party may not file a motion to correct a disposition or commitment order during the time allowed for the filing of a motion to correct or during the pendency of a direc…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed after a notice of appeal has been filed.
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“A court at any time may correct an illegal disposition or commitment order imposed by it. However, a party may not file a motion to correct under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or duriny the pendency of a direct appeal.”
The controlling rule that strips the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the State's post-appeal motion to modify the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.T.C. was found to have committed unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor. The trial court withheld adjudication and imposed probation with condi…
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 First-Degree Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
Appellant, D.T.C., appeals an order finding he committed the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor but withholding adjudication and placing D.T.C. on probation with conditions, including seventy-five hours of community service. We affirm.
The order on appeal was entered in writing on September 8, 2005. On September 22, 2005, D.T.C. filed a notice of appeal of that order. The next day, September 23, 2005, the State filed a motion to modify plea, arguing D.T.C. should have received 100 hours of community service instead of seventy five. See § 790.22(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005)(“A minor who violates subsection (3) [possession of a firearm by a minor] commits a misdemeanor of the first degree ... and ... shall be required to perform 100 hours of community service.”). The trial court docket reflects the trial court orally granted this motion on October 5, 2005.
Based on a plain reading of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(a), the State was precluded from filing its motion to modify plea the day after D.T.C. filed his notice of appeal. Rule 8.135(a) states:
Rule 8.135. Correction of Disposition or Commitment Orders
(a) Correction. A court at any time may correct an illegal disposition or commitment order imposed by it. However, a party may not file a motion to correct under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or duriny the pendency of a direct appeal. Rule 8.135(a)(emphasis added). It follows then that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State’s motion.
Because the State’s motion was filed one day after D.T.C. filed his notice of appeal, D.T.C. had no reason to know at the time he filed his notice that the State would seek to increase his seventy-five hour sentence. Nevertheless, the sole challenge D.T.C. raises in his initial brief on this appeal is that the trial court violated double jeopardy by orally increasing his sentence to 100 hours. As we have stated, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the State’s motion. Thus, there is no double jeopardy issue to be considered. In addition, because the State did not cross-appeal the improper sentence, we are unable to adjust the sentencing error on this appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s September 8, 2005 order.