S.F., 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.
The court affirmed the delinquency finding for simple battery as a lesser included offense but struck several court costs that cannot be assessed against a juvenile with a withheld adjudication.
A juvenile adjudication may be withheld while finding delinquency for a lesser included offense, but certain court costs including crimes prevention fees, additional court costs, criminal surcharges, and teen courts fees cannot be assessed against a juvenile with a withheld adjudication.
[1] Crimes prevention program costs, additional court costs, criminal surcharges, and teen courts fees authorized by Florida Statutes cannot be assessed against a juvenile 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 intelligenceS.F., a juvenile, was charged with burglary with a battery. The trial court found the appellant delinquent of simple battery as a lesser included offe…
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 Burglary With A Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order finding the appellant delinquent, but withholding adjudication. On the merits, we affirm the determination that S.F. committed a simple battery, as a lesser included offense of the charged offense of burglary with a battery. See Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 595, 599 (Fla.2007); Fla. R. Juv. P. Rule 8.110(j)(2), Florida Statutes (2008).
The respondent’s challenge to several of the items of the court costs assessed below, however, has considerable merit. First, we agree that the $20 crimes prevention program cost, see section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2009), does not apply to juvenile withholds of adjudication like this. See J.Z. v. State, 46 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); J.S. v. State, 19 So.3d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). On the same ground, neither the $65 additional court cost nor the $85 temporary criminal surcharge authorized by Section 939.185(l)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2009), may be assessed. See J.W.J. v. State, 994 So.2d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); M.D.J. v. State, 936 So.2d 774, 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); T.L.S., 949 So.2d at 292-93. This is also true as to the $3 teen courts fee, see section 938.19, Florida Statutes (2009), which also fails because Miami-Dade. County has not, as section 938.19 requires, specifically elected to apply the cost to delinquencies. See Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, § 98-*117185; EM. v. State, 53 So.3d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); E.J. v. State, 912 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005).
Affirmed in part; stricken in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.C. v. State, 127 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…unty Commissioners had not amended its ordinance assessing additional fees, pursuant to section 938.19, Florida Statutes (2011), to include a reference to juvenile delinquency cases. We therefore reverse for deletion of that fee.2 See S.F. v. State, 56 So. 3d 116, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Finally, the child notes that the court set a restitution hearing during the pendency of this appeal, but there is no restitution order in this record, nor has one been appealed. The issue is therefore not before us. If the…
-
H.S. v. State, 229 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…The statute simply does not authorize the surcharge when, as here, 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…
-
W.A. v. State, 60 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…t costs and $85 temporary criminal surcharge pursuant to section 939.185(l)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes, and $50 for a crimes prevention program pursuant to section 775.083(2)(a), Florida Statutes,' were unauthorized and are vacated. See S.F. v. State, 56 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Affirmed in part; stricken in part.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2007)
- 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)
- Collie v. State, 912 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- J.S. v. State, 19 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- M.D.J. v. State, 936 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- J.Z. v. State, 46 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- K.M. v. State, 53 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- FOX v. In re Matter of Kevin Mincey & Katina Royal, 53 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)