O.H., 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.
The court affirmed a juvenile's adjudications for battery, disrupting a school function, and resisting an officer, but reversed the restitution order requiring payment for the victim's mother's lost wages because such wages are not restitutable in juvenile cases.
A juvenile may not be ordered to pay restitution for a victim's parent's lost wages from attending trial.
[1] A juvenile may not be ordered to pay restitution for a victim's parent's lost wages incurred in attending trial.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO.H. was adjudicated delinquent for battery, disrupting a school function, and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court ordered her to p…
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 Resisting An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
O.H. appeals her juvenile adjudications and dispositions for battery, disrupting a school function, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm her adjudications and dispositions without comment, but we reverse the original order of restitution.
O.H. was ordered to pay $102 in restitution for wages lost by the victim’s mother in attending and testifying at trial. On February 23, 2006, O.H. filed a motion to correct disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2), which provides that a trial court shall file an order ruling on the motion within thirty days or the motion is deemed denied. The trial court granted the motion on April 19, 2006. Because the trial court did not rule on the motion within thirty days, the order granting the motion is a nullity. See E.J. v. State, 912 So. 2d 382, 383 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that rule 8.135(b) is the juvenile version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)); Jackson v. State, 793 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a trial court order that untimely rules on a rule 3.800(b) motion is a nullity). However, the trial court correctly determined that O.H. should not be ordered to pay restitution for the victim’s mother’s lost wages. See P.H. v. State, 774 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175, 176-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Therefore, we reverse O.H.’s original order of restitution and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order of restitution.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.T. v. State, 8 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…o [*1154] tion to clarify the disposition order until more than thirty days after the motion was filed, the amended final disposition order filed January 9, 2009, is a nullity. See D.D.M. v. State, 979 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Thus, the disposition order is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of a corrected order. ALLEN, WOLF, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
-
C.C. v. State, 127 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…he rule, and the motion is deemed denied. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (2)(B); see, e.g., C.J.T. v. State, 76 So. 3d 1139, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The court’s subsequent ruling is a nullity, because the court lacked jurisdiction. O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). . This too was corrected by the trial court, but its order was untimely pursuant to Rule 8.135 and thus was a nullity.…
-
D.D.M. v. State, 979 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…cient reasons were given in the order denying the rule 8.135 motion, the slate concedes that the order was entered more than 30 days after the motion was filed, and thus, the order is deemed denied. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B); O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (order on rule 8.135 motion entered after 30 days is a nullity).…
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
- Robbie Jackson v. State, 793 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Collie v. State, 912 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- P.H. v. State, 774 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)