T.A.
v.
STATE
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 disposition order that withholds adjudication in a juvenile delinquency case must specify the length of probation imposed, and if it fails to do so, the matter must be remanded for the trial court to determine the duration of probation.
[1] A juvenile disposition order that withholds adjudication and imposes probation must specify the length of the probationary term; where the record is ambiguous as to wheth…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place [T.A.] on an indefinite period of probation or whether it was an oversight that the length of probation was not specified.”
Court's explanation for reversal and remand
A juvenile was found to have committed burglary of an occupied dwelling. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed the juvenile on probation, b…
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 Probationary Term cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge.
T.A. challenges the trial court's juvenile disposition order in which the court found him guilty of committing the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling, withheld adjudication, and placed him on probation. However, neither the disposition order nor the court's oral pronouncement specifies the length of the probationary term imposed.
*899Because adjudication was withheld, the trial court could impose probation for an indefinite period not to exceed T.A.'s nineteenth birthday. See R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). But "[i]t is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place [T.A.] on an indefinite period of probation or whether it was an oversight that the length of probation was not specified." See K.A. v. State, 152 So. 3d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We therefore reverse the disposition order to the extent that it failed to set the length of T.A.'s probation and remand for a determination of the duration of probation. See id. We affirm the disposition order in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- K.A. v. State, 152 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)