M. V. D., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in ordering a determinate commitment period and restitution, as Florida statutes mandate indeterminate commitment and restitution is only permissible under specific circumstances not met here.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent, committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a determinate period, and ordered to pay r…
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 Indeterminate Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
This is an appeal from the order of the trial court adjudging appellant delinquent, committing him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and ordering him to make restitution in the amount of one hundred dollars. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. There was sufficient evidence in the record to establish both possession and felonious intent. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to those points.
However, the trial court did err by committing appellant to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a determinate period of time and in ordering restitution to be made. Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1981) mandates that “[a]ny commitment of a delinquent child to the department shall be for an indeterminate period of time ...” See also R. J. K. v. State, 375 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Additionally, Section 39.11(l)(a) allows for imposition of a penalty in the nature of restitution, but only if the child has been placed in a community control program. Section 39.11(l)(c), allowing for the child’s commitment to the department, contains no similar provision.
Consequently, as to those points, we reverse, and remand this cause to the trial court for entry of a commitment order consistent with this opinion and chapter 39.
BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.S., 429 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…into [*845] the community. Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 743.07, the term of said commitment shall be until said child is' discharged by the department or until he reaches the age of 19. The First District Court of Appeal in M.V.D. v. State, 414 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), stated that: Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1981) mandates that “[a]ny commitment of a delinquent child to the department shall be for an indeterminate period of time ...” See also R.J.K. v. State, 375 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st…
-
In the Interest of A.N.J. v. State, 554 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…and the other two charges were nolle prossed. The trial court committed A.N.J. to HRS, the commitment to run “consecutive to case 88-6457-CJA”.1 It is with this “consecutive” commitment that HRS alleges reversible fault. Citing to M.V.D. v. State, 414 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and In the Interest of M.S., 429 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), HRS argues that the circuit court’s authority to discipline a delinquent child is governed by section 39.11, Florida Statutes and thus, absent express statutory aut…
-
W.P.J. v. State, 443 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ing restitution because appellant was not placed in a community control program. A penalty in the nature of restitution may be imposed, but only if the child has been placed in a community control program. § 39.11, Fla.Stat. (1981); M.V.D. v. State, 414 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the trial court to strike that portion of the commitment order imposing restitution. In all other respects, the order is affirmed. GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R. J. K. v. State, 375 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)