R.H., 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.H. appeals the trial court's revocation of her juvenile probation. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation because the State failed to file a required petition before the probation period expired, and an affidavit alone cannot toll probation.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke R.H.'s probation because section 985.439(l)(b) and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.120(a)(3) require either the State or DJJ to file a petition alleging violation before revocation proceedings can occur, and there is no provision allowing probation to be tolled by the filing of an affidavit.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke juvenile probation after the probation period has expired.
[2] The filing of an affidavit alleging a probation violation does not toll the expiration of juvenile probation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there is no provision in either the statutes or the rules governing juvenile delinquency proceedings that allows for [the] tolling of probation upon the filing of an affidavit and the issuance of a warrant”
Establishes the core holding that affidavits cannot toll probation expiration
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.H. was placed on six months of probation on July 21, 2010, after pleading guilty to possessing drug paraphernalia. On January 18, 2011, law enforcem…
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 Mootness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
R.H. appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation and resulting disposition. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke R.H.’s probation and enter a new disposition, we reverse.
On July 21, 2010, the trial court placed R.H. on six months of probation after she pleaded guilty to possessing drug paraphernalia. On January 18, 2011, law enforcement filed a sworn affidavit alleging that R.H. had violated her probation by running away from home. However, neither the State nor the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) filed a corresponding petition with the court pursuant to section 985.439(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.120(a)(3) alleging a violation of probation. Thus, by the time of R.H.’s probation hearing on February 7, 2011, R.H. argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider the violation because she was no longer on probation due to the State’s or the DJJ’s failure to file the petition. The trial court disagreed, finding that the filing of the affidavit tolled the expiration of R.H.’s probation. R.H. ultimately admitted to the violation, and the trial court placed her on an additional three months of probation.1
*1167This court recently held that “there is no provision in either the statutes or the rules governing juvenile delinquency proceedings that allows for [the] tolling of probation upon the filing of an affidavit and the issuance of a warrant.” T.L.H. v. State, 93 So.3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing K.L.T. v. State, 65 So.3d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Because section 985.439(l)(b) and rule 8.120(a)(3) both- require either the State or the DJJ to file a petition alleging a violation of juvenile probation before revocation proceedings can occur and because no petition was filed in this case, we conclude that R.H.’s probation expired prior to the revocation hearing. Therefore, we adopt this court’s reasoning in T.L.H. and hold that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider R.H.’s alleged violation of probation.
Reversed.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
X.G. v. State, 106 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…this issue was correct; X.G.’s probation was set to expire in that case on August 11, 2011, and even though the affidavit/petition was filed in July 2011, there is no tolling provision applicable to juvenile probation proceedings. See R.H. v. State, 93 So. 3d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); T.L.H. v. State, 93 So. 3d 396, 398-99 [*92] (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Regardless, case 10-CJ-5510 is not part of this appeal.…
-
State v. T. A. K., 240 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…. 2d DCA 2013) ("X.G.'s probation was set to expire . . . on August 11, 2011, and even though the affidavit/petition was filed in July 2011, there is no tolling provision applicable to juvenile probation proceedings." (first citing R.H. v. State, 93 So. 3d 1166, 1167 (Fla. - 4 - 2d DCA 2012); then citing T.L.H., 93 So. 3d at 398-99)). Consequently, whether the probation violation proceedings were initiated prior to the expiration of T.A.K.'s probation is of no moment. And, of course, we cannot rewrit…
Authorities Cited
- N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2000)
- T.L.H. v. State, 93 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- K.L.T. v. State, 65 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- M.L.J. v. State, 93 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)