A.R., 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.
A juvenile appeals his delinquency adjudication and commitment order. The court affirmed the adjudication and disposition but reversed and remanded the commitment order because the trial court failed to enter separate disposition orders for each offense within the required thirty-day deadline.
The amended disposition orders were nullities because they were entered more than thirty days after the motion was filed. The court affirmed the adjudication and disposition but reversed the original commitment order and remanded for the trial court to enter new separate disposition orders as required by rule.
[1] A trial court must enter separate disposition orders for each offense when adjudicating a juvenile delinquent.
[2] An amended order of commitment entered more than thirty days after a juvenile's motion to correct disposition error is filed is a nullity.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an order granting relief on a motion to correct disposition error entered more than thirty days after the motion was filed is a nullity”
Establishes the thirty-day deadline requirement and consequences for non-compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.R., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated assault, trespass, and disorderly conduct in two separate cases. He filed a motion to corr…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
A.R., a juvenile, appeals the order adjudicating him delinquent for aggravated assault, trespass, and disorderly conduct and committing him to a high-risk residential facility. We affirm his adjudication and disposition without comment, but reverse the original commitment order and remand for further proceedings.
The original order of commitment adjudicated A.R. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for offenses committed in two separate cases. On April 20, 2009, A.R. filed a motion to correct disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2). In his motion, A.R. argued that the trial court erred in not entering separate disposition orders as to each offense. On June 17, 2009, the trial court entered amended orders of commitment reflecting A.R.’s delinquency adjudication and commitment for aggravated assault and trespass in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001446 and disorderly conduct in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001659. However, because the trial court did not enter its amended orders until more than thirty days after A.R.’s rule 8.135(b)(2) motion was filed, the amended orders are nullities. See O.H. v. State, 948 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order granting relief on a motion to correct disposition error entered more than thirty days after the motion was filed is a nullity); J.M. v. State, 4 So.3d 703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[R]ule 8.135(b)(1)(B) requires the trial court to ‘file an order ruling on the motion’ within 30 days, failing which ‘the motion shall be deemed denied.’ ”). Accordingly, we reverse the original disposition order and remand to the trial court for entry of new disposition orders as to each case. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(c) (providing that “[e]aeh case requires a separate disposition order”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.S.G. v. State, 32 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…d in his motion that the juvenile court erred by entering one order of commitment in two separate cases. We find this was also error because under then-existing rule 8.115(c), “[ejach case requires a separate disposition order.”1 See A.R. v. State, 27 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); G.V. v. State, 863 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse the original disposition order and remand to the juvenile court for the entry of new, separate disposition oz'ders in each case that properly r…
Authorities Cited
- O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Howard v. Howard, 4 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- J.M. v. State, 4 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)