D.B., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2013-06-14
No. 2D11-1456
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
114 So. 3d 1121 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 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.B., a juvenile, appealed his adjudications of delinquency for firearm and robbery offenses. The court affirmed the adjudications but reversed and remanded the disposition orders because they failed to specify the statutory maximum penalties and the time served in secure detention as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure.


Holding

The court affirmed D.B.'s adjudications of delinquency but reversed the disposition orders and remanded for correction because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2) by not specifying the statutory maximum penalties and the amount of time served in secure detention prior to disposition.


Headnotes

[1] A juvenile court disposition order must specify the maximum penalty for each offense as defined by statute.

[2] A juvenile court disposition order must specify the amount of time served in secure detention prior to disposition.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

“state the disposition of each count, specifying the charge title, degree of offense, and maximum penalty defined by statute and specifying the amount of time served in secure detention before disposition”

Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2) requirement for disposition orders that the trial court failed to meet

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

D.B. was arrested and adjudicated delinquent for carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of a firearm with an alt…

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
SLEET, Judge.

SLEET, Judge.

D.B., a juvenile, challenges his adjudications of delinquency for carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and four counts of robbery with a firearm.1 D.B. raises three arguments on appeal, but we find merit only in D.B.’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to amend D.B.’s disposition orders to specify the maximum penalties for the offenses and the amount of time served in secure detention prior to disposition. Thus, we affirm D.B.’s adjudications of delinquency, but we reverse for correction of his disposition orders.

D.B. was arrested for his participation in a series of robberies committed on taxi and pizza-delivery drivers. Following the adjudications of delinquency, the trial court committed D.B. to a high-risk residential facility until his nineteenth birthday on the felony charges of carrying a concealed firearm and robbery. As to the remaining misdemeanor charges, the trial court committed D.B. to the facility not to exceed one year. Thereafter, D.B. filed a motion under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) to correct his disposition order in case number 10-CJ-1750, contending that the trial court erroneously grouped the misdemeanor charges of possession of a firearm by a minor and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number with the third-degree felony of carrying a concealed firearm. D.B. also argued that the order should be amended to reflect the *1122statutory maximum for the offenses, to specify the amount of time served in secure detention prior to disposition, and to state that D.B. was committed until his nineteenth birthday or the statutory maximum, whichever occurs first.

After holding a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted D.B.’s motion and amended all five disposition orders to reflect a commitment of five years on the felony charges and 365 days on the misdemeanor charges with five years of po-stcommitment probation on the felony charges and one year on the misdemeanor charges. D.B. then filed a second motion to correct his disposition orders, arguing that the amended orders had to be corrected to state that he was to be committed until his nineteenth birthday or the statutory maximum, whichever occurred first, and to specify the amount of time spent in secure detention and the maximum penalty for the offenses. D.B. also contended that the trial court erred in amending the orders to reflect a period of postcommitment probation. The trial court did not rule on the second motion.

We find that several of D.B.’s contentions are without merit. However, as the State concedes, the trial court erred in failing to correct D.B.’s disposition orders to specify the amount of time spent in secure detention prior to disposition and the maximum penalty for the offenses as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2). See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(d)(2) (prescribing that an order of disposition “state the disposition of each count, specifying the charge title, degree of offense, and maximum penalty defined by statute and specifying the amount of time served in secure detention before disposition”); see also G.V. v. State, 863 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm D.B.’s adjudications of delinquency, but we reverse the amended disposition orders and remand for correction of the orders in accordance with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • A.M.R. v. State, 134 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
    …e amount of time served in secure detention before disposition.” As A.M.R.’s disposition orders did not specify the number of dáys A.M.R. served in secure detention before disposition, they must be corrected to do so on [*504] remand. D.B. v. State, 114 So. 3d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2) requires that a disposition orders specify the amount of time spent in secure detention prior to disposition). Lastly, as urged by A.M.R., the orders in case numb…
  • D.T. v. State, 185 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
    …rder to reflect all of the required information (the maximum penalty and whether the child spent any time in secure detention before disposition). See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(d); A.M.R. v. State, 134 So. 3d 502, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); D.B. v. State, 114 So. 3d 1121, 1121-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Affirmed. TAYLOR, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).…
  • T.H.C. v. State, 186 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
    …court to correct the delinquency disposition order to reflect all of the required information. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(d); T.J. v. State, 174 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); A.M.R. v. State, 134 So. 3d 502, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); D.B. v. State, 114 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Affirmed, bid remanded. CIKLIN, C.J., GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (Í967).…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw