IN THE MATTER OF J. S. D., A CHILD
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 16-year-old minor appeals a juvenile court order revoking his probation and reinstating his commitment to the Florida School for Boys. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's discretionary decision to revoke probation based on the minor's violation of probation conditions and pattern of delinquent conduct.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and reinstating the commitment. Once a child is lawfully adjudged delinquent, the juvenile court has broad discretion to take action in the best interest of the child, and the court's decision to revoke probation was supported by the minor's pattern of delinquent and incorrigible conduct.
“Once a child had been lawfully declared a delinquent, a broad discretion is vested in the juvenile court to do those things which appear to the court to be in the best interest of the child.”
Establishes the legal principle that juvenile courts have broad discretion in disposition of delinquent children once adjudication is final.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a 16-year-old, was adjudged delinquent and committed to the Florida School for Boys. The juvenile court subsequently suspended the commitme…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, a 16 year old minor, appeals an order of the juvenile court rescinding an earlier order of probation and reinstating its original order committing appellant to Florida School for Boys at Okeechobee, Florida. Appellant previously had been adjudged delinquent within the meaning of Fla.Stat. § 39.01(11), F.S.A. and was ordered committed. The adjudication was not challenged by a timely appeal. Fla. Stat. § 39.14(2), F.S.A.; In re Evans, Fla.App.1960, 116 So.2d 783.
Subsequently the juvenile court suspended the commitment pending appellant’s good behavior, and appellant was placed on probation. The conditions of probation were clearly set forth. Approximately four months later the appellant was officially reported to have violated several conditions of his probation. The Court thereupon rescinded the probation and reinstated the order of commitment. The appellant contends that this was error in that, among other things, the record does not reflect that the order of rescission and reinstatement of commitment was entered pursuant to regular court hearing.
Essentially the only question for our determination is whether or not the juvenile court abused its discretion in revoking probation and reinstating the order of commitment. Cf. Pendarvis v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 651; Fla.Stat. § 39.11, F.S.A. The appellant would have us reverse not only the reinstatement of commitment but also the prior order of February 13, 1963 which adjudged him delinquent. We have previously noted that the adjudication was not appropriately challenged; nor is it otherwise shown from the instant record that the appellant was denied due process with respect to said adjudication. Further, it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in entering the subsequent order of rescission and reinstatement of commitment. Once a child had been lawfully declared a delinquent, a broad discretion is vested in the juvenile court to do those things which appear to the court to be in the best interest of the child. Pendar-vis v. State, supra.
*781It would serve no useful purpose to set forth the facts in further detail. The juvenile court files before us indicate a strong trend of delinquent and incorrigible conduct on the part of the appellant. A careful examination of the entire record on appeal discloses no reversible error in the proceedings below.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. D. E. v. Keller, 251 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…of the Court. Petitioner was given a hearing on April 7, 1970, but without an adequate opportunity to summon witnesses. The hearing on April 7 was, in effect, a revocation of probation hearing. This Court held In the Matter of J.S.D., Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 780: “Once a child had been lawfully declared a delinquent, a broad discretion is vested in the juvenile court to do those things which appear to the court to be in the best interest of the child.” After the rendition of the opinion in J.S.D., supra,…
Authorities Cited
- Pendarvis v. State, 104 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- In the Interest of Ida Glendlyn (9) & Glenn Earl (8) Evans, 116 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)