D.H., A CHILD,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2013-06-10
No. 1D12-4806
ROBERTS, J., concurs., THOMAS, J., dissents.
114 So. 3d 496 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

D.H., a juvenile, appeals his disposition order committing him to a high-risk residential facility for a misdemeanor battery conviction. The appellate court affirms the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial judge but reverses the commitment order as violating Florida statute, which prohibits committing juveniles convicted solely of misdemeanors to high-risk facilities absent specific statutory exceptions.


Holding

A trial court may not commit a juvenile to a high-risk facility for a misdemeanor offense unless one of four statutory exceptions applies: prior felony adjudication, three or more prior misdemeanor adjudications, specified sex or animal cruelty offenses, or written findings that public protection or the child's particular needs require such placement. The commitment order was reversed as illegal.


Headnotes

[1] A juvenile adjudicated delinquent for a misdemeanor offense may not be committed to a high-risk residential facility unless specific statutory exceptions are met.

[2] Commitment of a juvenile to a restrictiveness level higher than minimum-risk nonresidential for a misdemeanor offense is an illegal sentence if not supported by statutory…

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

Key Quotes

“An illegal sentence is one which does not comply with Florida Statutes.”

Establishes the legal standard for evaluating whether a disposition order violates statutory restrictions.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

D.H. was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle (felony) and misdemeanor battery. Following a bench trial, he was acquitted of the felony but fou…

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.


Opinion of the Court
VAN NORTWICK, J.

VAN NORTWICK, J.

In this appeal, D.H., a juvenile, argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge; and (2) in the disposition order, the trial court impermissibly committed him to a high-risk juvenile facility for a misdemean- or offense. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify without further comment. We find merit, however, in D.H.’s second issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In Case Number CJ-538, D.H. was charged with grand'theft of a motor vehicle, a third degree felony (Count I), and misdemeanor battery (Count II). Following a bench trial, D.H. was found not guilty of Count I and guilty of Count II. The trial court scheduled the case for a disposition hearing and requested the Department of Juvenile Justice (the Department) to complete a Pre-Disposition Report (PDR). The PDR considered a number of factors, including that D.H. was being held pursuant to a juvenile detention order pending his commitment to a high-risk residential program in accordance with an earlier delinquency disposition. Ultimately, the PDR recommended committing D.H. to a high-risk facility followed by conditional release, to run concurrent with the terms of his previous adjudications. The trial court agreed with the Department’s recommendation that it was in D.H.’s best interest, considered in light of the public safety, to commit him to a high-risk residential facility, concurrent with the dispositions already administered. The trial court denied defense counsel’s objection to the disposition and this appeal ensued.

An illegal sentence is one which does not comply with Florida Statutes. Moore v. State, 768 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Hinson v. State, 709 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“[A] sentence that exceeds the maximum allowed by statute is an illegal sentence.”). Section 985.441(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), empowers a trial court to commit to the supervision of the Department a juvenile that is adjudicated delinquent. In this *498statute, however, the Legislature has limited the scope of a trial court’s commitment authority, as follows:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), the court having jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent child whose underlying offense was a misdemeanor may not commit the child for any misdemeanor offense or any probation violation at a restrictiveness level other than minimum-risk nonresidential unless the probation violation is a new violation of law constituting a felony. However, the court may commit such child to a low-risk or moderate-risk residential placement if:
(a) The child has previously been adjudicated for a felony offense;
(b) The child has been adjudicated or had adjudication, withheld for three or more misdemeanor offenses;
(c) The child is before the court for disposition for a violation of s. 800.03, s. 806.081, or s. 828.12; or
(d) The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protection of the public requires such placement or that the particular needs of the child would be best served by such placement. Such finding must be in writing.

§ 985.441(2), Fla. Stat. (2012).

Here, in Case Number CJ-538, D.H. was found guilty only of misdemean- or battery. Pursuant to section 985.441(2), he could be committed, at the most, to a moderate or low-risk facility. Thus, the trial court’s order committing D.H. to a high-risk restrictiveness level was contrary to law.

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to allow the trial court to enter a disposition order in compliance with Florida Statutes.

ROBERTS, J., concurs.

THOMAS, J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • I. A. v. State, 163 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …two counts of misdemeanor, battery and admitted only to [*672] technical violations of probation, under section 985.441(2), Florida Statutes (2014), appellant could be committed, at the most, to a nonsecure residential placement. See D.H. v. State, 114 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Even under the changes made to section 985.441(2) during the 2014 Legislative, session, see Ch.2014-162, § 25, at 43, Laws of Fla. and Ch.2014-162, § 3, at 16, Laws of Fla., the court could not have committed appellant to a high…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw