R.F., 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.
R.F., a juvenile, appealed a disposition order withheld adjudication of delinquency and imposed indefinite probation until his nineteenth birthday for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The appellate court affirmed the delinquency finding and withhold of adjudication, but reversed the imposition of costs under section 939.185, finding that statute inapplicable when adjudication is withheld.
The court affirmed the probationary term, holding that the statutory limitations on juvenile probation apply only when the court adjudicates a child delinquent, not when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency. The court reversed the imposition of costs under section 939.185 because that statute applies only to cases with adjudication of delinquency, not withhold cases.
[1] When a court withholds adjudication of delinquency, the probationary term imposed may exceed the statutory maximum that could be imposed if adjudication were made.
[2] A statute imposing costs on an adjudication of delinquency does not apply when adjudication is withheld.
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“However, this limitation on the period of juvenile probation specifically applies when the court adjudicates a child delinquent, not when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency.”
Establishes the key distinction that statutory limits on probation duration apply only upon adjudication, not when adjudication is withheld.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.F. was thirteen years old when the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency for committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and impos…
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
R.F. appeals a disposition order that withholds adjudication of delinquency and places him on indefinite probation not to exceed his nineteenth birthday for committing the delinquent act of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm the determination that R.F. committed the delinquent act and the withhold of adjudication of delinquency without comment but write to address the disposition which we affirm. Additionally, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike certain costs.
R.F. filed a motion to correct disposition error under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) which was deemed denied when the trial court failed to render an order on the motion within thirty days. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(B). In the motion, R.F. argued, among other things, that the trial court entered an illegal disposition of indefinite probation not to exceed his nineteenth birthday. He also argued that the trial court improperly imposed an unknown amount of costs in the written order that reads “$_F.S. 939.185” and that the statute does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases.
With respect to the probationary term imposed on the withhold of adjudication, R.F. was thirteen when the trial court imposed probation not to exceed R.F.’s nineteenth birthday. Thus, the disposition imposed more than five years of probation. On appeal, R.F. argues and the State concedes that for the third-degree felony of aggravated assault, the maximum probationary term for R.F. is five years. Aggravated assault is a third-degree felony that carries a statutory maximum penalty for an adult of five years in prison. See §§ 775.082(3)(d), 784.021(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). Both R.F. and the State contend that juvenile probation cannot exceed the term that the court could impose if it committed the juvenile, and a commitment may not exceed the maximum term that an adult could serve for the same crime. See §§ 985.435(5), .455(3), Fla. Stat. (2007).1
However, this limitation on the period of juvenile probation specifically applies when the court adjudicates a child delinquent, not when the court withholds *335adjudication of delinquency. See §§ 985.35(4)(a), .435(1), (5), .455(1), (3); N.W. v. State, 767 So.2d 446, 450 (Fla.2000); J.M.W. v. State, 935 So.2d 630, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).2 Therefore, because the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency, it properly imposed the probationary term until R.F.’s nineteenth birthday. Accordingly, we affirm the probationary term.
With respect to costs under section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2007), R.F. correctly points out that the trial court failed to give him notice of the amount owed. In addition, R.F. and the State cite to J.W.J. v. State, 994 So.2d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), for the proposition that section 939.185 does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases. We note that effective July 1, 2007, the legislature amended section 939.185 to apply specifically to an adjudication of delinquency. See Ch.2007-71, § 3, at 515, § 4, at 516, Laws of Fla. However, the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency. See § 939.185(1)(a). Thus, section 939.185 is not applicable to R.F.’s case. To the extent that the order imposes costs under section 939.185, we reverse and direct the trial court on remand to strike those costs.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.F. v. State, 218 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…83 So. 3d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“[Cjase law establishes that statutory reference to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent does not encompass a juvenile for whom adjudication has been withheld.”) (citations omitted); R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (‘We note that effective July 1, 2007, the legislature amended section 939.185 to apply specifically to an adjudication of delinquency. However, the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the cost when the cou…
-
K.A. v. State, 152 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…985.35(4) allows a trial court to withhold adjudication and place a child who “has committed a delinquent act” on probation, but unlike section 985.435(5), this section does not provide for a limitation on the length of the probation. R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 334-35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that when the trial court withholds adjudication of delinquency, it may impose probation until a juvenile’s nineteenth birthday). It is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place K.A. on an…
-
H.S. v. State, 229 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ere, a juvenile is found to be delinquent, but adjudication is withheld. This Court has previously found the statute does mot apply to juvenile withholds of adjudication. S.F. v. State, 56 So. 3d 116, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that while the Florida Legislature amended section 939.185 in 2007 to apply it specifically to an adjudiea-tión of delinquency; “the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the [additional] cost when th…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2000)
- T.L.S. a Child v. State, 949 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- J.W.J. v. State, 994 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Tirrell Tyrone Palmer v. State, 935 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)