J.E.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.
J.E.R., a 15-year-old, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for grand theft after being found hiding in a friend's home where valuables went missing. The appellate court affirmed the delinquency adjudication but remanded for correction of sentencing credit and clarification of the commitment period.
The court affirmed the grand theft adjudication as supported by sufficient evidence. The court remanded for correction of time-served credit in secure detention and clarification of the ambiguous sentencing language regarding the commitment period.
[1] A juvenile adjudicated delinquent for grand theft is entitled to credit for time served in secure detention.
[2] A disposition order committing a juvenile for an indeterminate period no longer than a specific birthday or the maximum term of imprisonment is erroneous if it could be c…
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“language committing a juvenile for an indeterminate period of time no longer than a specific birthday or the maximum term of imprisonment is error because such language could allow the sentence to be construed as running longer than the statutory maximum provided for the particular offense.”
The court's concern that the commitment language was ambiguous and potentially violated statutory maximums for juvenile sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.E.R. was discovered hiding in a friend's bedroom during school hours in an unlocked, vacant home. When the homeowner returned, he found several valu…
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 Indeterminate Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
Fifteen-year-old J.E.R. was hiding in a friend’s bedroom when he should have been in school. The friend’s father found him upon returning from taking his son to school. The father had left the home vacant and unlocked. The father removed J.E.R. from the home and returned him to the area near the school that J.E.R. told him he attended. The father then discovered that several valuable items were missing from the home. One of these items was found in J.E.R.’s possession later that day.
*822Based on these events, the State filed a petition alleging delinquency against J.E.R. for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. The court acquitted him of the burglary charge, adjudicated him delinquent for the grand theft, adjudicated him, and imposed substantial restitution for the items that were never recovered. He appeals, raising two issues: first, that there was insufficient evidence to support the grand theft and, second, that he was denied allowable credit for time served in secure detention.
We find no merit in his first issue and affirm the adjudication of delinquency without further discussion. The State properly concedes error on the second issue.1 We therefore remand for correction of the amount of time served to reflect credit for time served in secure detention. See A.M. v. State, 958 So.2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Affirmed but remanded for correction of the amount of time served. Appellant need not be present for this correction.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.S.B. v. State, 59 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…prisonment is error because such language could allow the sentence to be construed as running longer than the statutory maximum provided for the particular offense.” L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also J.E.R. v. State, 56 So. 3d 821, 822 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). When the juvenile is young enough that the statutory maximum for the offense will expire before the juvenile reaches majority, a disposition order that appears to permit the Department to choose between retaining jurisd…
Authorities Cited
- L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- A.M. v. State, 958 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)