D.N., A JUVENILE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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's failure to object at the time of disposition and failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b) bars appellate review of disposition errors.
[1] A disposition error in a juvenile proceeding is not reviewable on direct appeal unless the defendant objected at the time of disposition or filed a motion to correct the…
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“[T]he absence of any objection at the time of disposition, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), precludes consideration even of fundamental disposition errors on direct appeal.”
Citation to D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), establishing preservation requirement for disposition errors.
D.N., a juvenile, appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in multiple cases (J19-2275B, J20-41, J21-100, J21-101).…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“[T]he absence of any objection at the time of disposition, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), precludes consideration even of fundamental disposition errors on direct appeal.” (citing C.C. v. State, 150 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))); Daniels v. State, 118 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming sentence without prejudice on the basis that “[c]laims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief”); see also Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.H. v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…8) (“Basing its decision on the protection of the public did not absolve the court of its responsibility to relate the level of commitment it imposed to the needs or attributes of the particular child.”). That error is fundamental. D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“[F]ailure to comply with E.A.R. constitutes fundamental error . . . .”). If, however, the trial court committed the child to a nonsecure residential facility, then it did not deviate from the Department’s recommended rest…
Authorities Cited
- A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- C.C. v. State, 150 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Elbert N. Daniels v. State, 118 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)