F.H., 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 held that the written adjudicatory order must be corrected to reflect that adjudication was withheld as orally pronounced by the trial court.
[1] A written adjudicatory order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement regarding adjudication.
[2] A trial court may withhold adjudication of delinquency.
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 intelligenceF.H. was found delinquent on one count of battery of a police officer, with adjudication withheld at the disposition hearing. However, the written adj…
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 Judgment Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
F.H., appeals from a delinquency order rendered September 8, 2010. The public defender filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). F.H. was provided an opportunity to file a pro se statement of points but did not do so. *548The Petition for Delinquency in this case consisted of three counts: Count I-Battery of a police officer, a third-degree felony; Count II-resisting an officer with violence, a third-degree felony; and Count Ill-resisting an officer without violence, a misdemeanor. A bench trial was held September 8, 2010, during which the State agreed to nolle pros Count III. F.H. moved for a judgment of dismissal on the remaining counts, which motion was denied. At the conclusion of the case, the trial court stated, “I am finding F.H. not delinquent on Count Two, and delinquent on Count One.”
During the October 14, 2010, disposition hearing, the following occurred:
JUDGE CYNAMON: I’m going to pronounce your disposition at this time,
[F.H.]. And I’m going to place you on probation for a period of one year.
I am waiving the cost of care based on your affidavit, which means you will not be paying for probation supervision.
THE MOTHER: Could it be probations made, Your Honor, which could be a with [hold] — with adjudication with the—
JUDGE CYNAMON: I did withhold adjudication.
THE MOTHER: You did?
JUDGE CYNAMON: I did.
(emphasis added).
The September 8, 2010, adjudicatory order does not, however, reflect that adjudication was withheld. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions that it enter a corrected written adjudicatory order to reflect that adjudication was withheld as to Count I. See N.G. v. State, 50 So.3d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (remanding to the trial court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement); accord, Parajon v. State, 50 So.3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed and case remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Reiniel Parajon v. State, 50 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- N.G. v. State, 50 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)