B.G., 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.
B.G., a juvenile, appealed an adjudication order finding him delinquent, challenging the disposition order's failure to include essential information required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d). The court agreed the order was deficient for omitting the child's age, statutory maximum penalties, and degree of offenses, making it impossible to determine the maximum length of commitment.
The disposition order was deficient and must be reversed and corrected to comply with Rule 8.115(d) by including the child's age, charge titles with the specific degree of offense, and statutory maximum penalties. The assessment for teen court costs must also be deleted from the amended disposition.
[1] A juvenile disposition order must specify the name and age of the child, the disposition of each count, including the charge title, degree of offense, and statutory maxim…
[2] A juvenile disposition order must clearly articulate the maximum length of commitment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court”
Establishes the core requirement that disposition orders must clearly state the commitment period
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.G., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and received a disposition order committing him to secure detention. The disposition order listed charges…
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 Secure Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
B.G., a juvenile, appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent. He argues the disposition order should be corrected because it fails to list his age, the degree of offenses, and the statutory maximum for the offenses, and also improperly assessed him a fee for teen court. Because this information is essential to determining the appropriate length of a juvenile commitment, we agree that the order is deficient. Although B.G. finished his secure detention prior to the issuance of this opinion, we address the issue because it is capable of repetition yet evading review. See N.W. v. State, 767 So.2d 446, 447 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (noting the case “became moot ... when the six months of community control expired. However, because periods of supervision or community control may expire before a case may be reviewed, this case presents a controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review, which should be considered on its merits”).1
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) provides, in relevant part, that a disposition order shall state: (1) “the name and age of the child”; and (2) “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.” This court has held that a “disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court.” Q.K. v. State, 945 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting S.B. v. State, 834 So.2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); see *549 also J.A.W. v. State, 873 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“The disposition order must clearly articulate the maximum length of commitment.”).
The disposition order committing B.G. failed to specify the statutory maximum for the offenses, as well as his age. Thus, it is impossible to tell, from the face of the order, the maximum length of B.G.’s commitment. It is not possible to determine the statutory maximum by referring to the statutes either, since the order simply lists “grand theft,” which could refer to a first, second, or third degree felony. See § 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2000)
- S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Altman v. Altman, 873 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Evans v. State, 945 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- C.C. v. State, 127 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)