C.M.B., 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 the adjudication of delinquency for battery but noted a potential issue with the disposition order that may exceed the maximum adult sentence, allowing the appellant to file a motion to correct the disposition order.
The adjudication of delinquency for first-degree misdemeanor battery is affirmed, though the disposition order may improperly exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for the same offense if committed by an adult.
[1] A juvenile's disposition order may be subject to challenge if its duration improperly exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment that an adult could receive for the same of…
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 intelligence“the duration of C.M.B.'s commitment may improperly exceed the maximum term of imprisonment that an adult may serve for the same offense”
The court identified a potential defect in the disposition order regarding sentence length compared to adult sentencing limits.
C.M.B. was adjudicated delinquent for a first-degree misdemeanor battery and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a modera…
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 Anders Review cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
C.M.B. appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent for a first-degree misdemeanor battery. C.M.B.’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there was no arguable merit in the appeal. Our review of the record and the one potential issue raised by C.M.B.’s counsel reveals no reversible error. We do note, however, an issue concerning C.M.B.’s disposition order. The order commits C.M.B. to the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a moderate risk program for an indeterminate period of time, followed by conditional release. Based on the wording of the order, the duration of C.M.B.’s commitment may improperly exceed the maximum term of imprisonment that an adult may serve for the same offense. See § 985.231(d), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also AC. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (concluding that the juvenile’s sentence was illegal because it exceeded the maximum term that he could have received as an adult for the same offense). Because C.M.B. did not preserve this issue for appeal, we affirm the adjudication and disposition orders in their entirety. Our affirmance is without prejudice to C.M.B. filing a motion to correct disposition order pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(a), if he elects to do so. See R.C.M. v. State, 887 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.F.H. v. State, 207 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…3d 64, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))). That said, we affirm without px-ejudice to any right B.F.H. might have to file a motion to correct disposition order pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(a) with the trial court. See C.M.B. v. State, 952 So. 2d 1207, 1208.(Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Affirmed. CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- A.C. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- R.C.M. v. State, 887 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)