C.C., 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.
A juvenile appeals his disposition order, challenging the trial court's failure to include mandatory requirements, incorrect charge adjudication (grand theft instead of petit theft), and unauthorized imposition of a teen court fee. The appellate court reverses and remands for entry of a corrected disposition order complying with procedural requirements and deletion of the improper fee.
The trial court's disposition order must be reversed and remanded because it failed to include mandatory requirements (child's age, proper disposition for each count, degree of offenses, and maximum terms), incorrectly adjudicated the child for grand theft instead of petit theft, and improperly imposed a teen court fee without proper county ordinance authorization.
[1] A disposition order for a juvenile must include the child's age, the proper disposition for each count, the degree of the offenses, and the maximum terms.
[2] A disposition order entered nunc pro tunc should be dated as of the original disposition.
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“the trial court failed to include the mandatory requirements for disposition orders contained in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)”
Establishes the core procedural deficiency that requires reversal and remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe child was adjudicated delinquent and received a disposition order that failed to include mandatory requirements such as the child's age, proper di…
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 Court Costs Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
A juvenile appeals his disposition order and sentence. The state concedes that the trial court failed to include the mandatory requirements for disposition orders contained in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d).1 The state also concedes that the disposition order contains an error by adjudicating the child guilty of grand theft instead of petit theft. We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected disposition, which must include the child’s age, the proper disposition for each count, degree of the offenses and the maximum terms. The order should be entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the original disposition.
In addition, the state also concedes that the imposition of the $2 teen court fee was unauthorized. Section 938.19(l)-(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “in each county in which a teen court has been created, the board of county commissioners may adopt a mandatory court cost to be assessed ... 2) ... against each person ... adjudicated delinquent.” In this case, at the time of disposition, the Broward Board of County Commissioners had not amended its ordinance assessing additional fees, pursuant to section 938.19, Florida Statutes (2011), to include a reference to juvenile delinquency cases. We therefore reverse for deletion of that fee.2 See S.F. v. State, 56 So.3d 116, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Finally, the child notes that the court set a restitution hearing during the pendency of this appeal, but there is no restitution order in this record, nor has one been appealed. The issue is therefore not before us. If the court acted without jurisdiction, it can be remedied by appealing that order.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.G. v. State, 137 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…e § 812.014(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). We thus reverse for correction of the disposition order to conform to the requirements of the rule. We also direct that the assessment for teen court costs be deleted in the amended disposition. See C.C. v. State, 127 So. 3d 685, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur. . As a practical matter, B.G. alleges the error is likely to recur in Broward County because "[u]nlike other counties, critical data (such as the áppellant’s age, the exact charge per s…
Authorities Cited
- O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- S.F. v. State, 56 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- State v. Detombeur, 76 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)