IN THE INTEREST OF S. L. 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.
Trial court erred in reversing its factual finding of petty larceny to impose a robbery adjudication to avoid statutory sentencing limitations; the crime cannot be molded to fit the sentence.
A trial court cannot reverse its factual findings after concluding the adjudicatory phase merely to impose a harsher sentence that would otherwise be limited by statute.
[1] A trial court may not reverse its factual findings at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing to impose a harsher sentence that would otherwise be limited by statute.
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“I'm going to take back what I said”
Trial court's statement upon learning of the sixty-day commitment limitation for petty larceny, immediately before reversing its finding to robbery.
S.L.D. was charged with robbery. At the adjudicatory hearing's conclusion, the trial court found the child committed petty larceny, a lesser included …
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 Judicial Factfinding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
S.L.D., a juvenile, was charged with robbery. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court announced its finding that the child had committed the lesser included offense of petty larceny.1 The court then began the disposition process at which point defense counsel reminded the court that Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1979), had the effect of limiting the term of commitment to sixty days since the statute specifies that “[a]ny commitment ... shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment which an adult may serve for the same offense.”2 The court responded by saying, “I’m going to take back what I said,” and proceeded to announce a finding of robbery and an adjudication based thereon. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in reversing itself after it concluded its responsibilities as the trier of fact. We agree and reverse.
It is axiomatic that a sentence can be molded to fit the crime, but the crime cannot be molded to fit the sentence. See Instruction 2.15(a), Florida Standard Jury Instructions (2d ed. 1975). Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an adjudication of delinquency based upon a finding of petty larceny together with the applicable limitation of Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
MOORE, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . Rule 8.190(k), Fla.R.Juv.P. . See G. W. M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 738, (Fla. 4th DCA, 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.O. v. State, 25 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ment. . § 985.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . 387 U.S. at 33-34, 87 S.Ct. 1428. . 387 U.S. at 21, 87 S.Ct. 1428. . D.T.H. v. State, 348 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla.1977). . D.M.M. v. State, 275 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). . In Interest of S.L.D., 394 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . No one disputes that a factual issue submitted to a jury for resolution must first be alleged in the charging document. . 542 U.S. at 301-02, 124 S.Ct. 2531; see also Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 16…
Authorities Cited
- G. W. M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)