A.B., A CHILD, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a trial court properly extended jurisdiction over a juvenile sex offender on probation until age twenty-one under a statute permitting extended jurisdiction for juveniles placed in either a "program or facility" for sexual offenders, not just residential facilities.
A trial court may extend jurisdiction over a juvenile sex offender until age twenty-one if the offender is placed in a sex offender program, even if not committed to a residential treatment facility.
[1] A juvenile sex offender placed in a sex offender program may be subject to extended court jurisdiction until age twenty-one under Florida Statutes section 985.0301(5)(h),…
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 intelligenceA juvenile sex offender was placed on probation by the trial court until her twenty-first birthday. The appellant contended the court lacked jurisdict…
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 Ordinary Meaning Of Statutory Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
At issue here is whether the trial court erred by placing a juvenile sex offender on probation beyond her nineteenth birthday. Section 985.0301(5)(h), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “[t]he court may retain jurisdiction of a juvenile sexual offender who has been placed in a program or facility for juvenile sexual offenders until the juvenile sexual offender reaches the age of 21 ...” Appellant contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by placing her on probation until age twenty-one because she was not committed to a residential treatment facility. We disagree and affirm.
In construing a statute, “statutory language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” E.D.B. v. State, 5 So.3d 787, 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Section 985.0301(5)(h) extends jurisdiction over juvenile sex offenders placed in either a “program or facility.” (Emphasis added). The statute is unambiguous; if either condition is satisfied, extended jurisdiction is proper. We find that the trial court *1184placed Appellant in a sex offender “program,” thus the fact that she was not committed to a residential treatment facility is inconsequential and probation until age twenty-one is proper.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Christian v. State, 5 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Bauder v. Ruvin, 5 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)