IN RE IN THE INTEREST OF E.J., A MINOR 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.
The court held that the juvenile's confession was not subject to suppression and that the commitment order, as written, did not err by retaining jurisdiction for restitution.
A juvenile appealed a delinquency adjudication, challenging the suppression of his confession and the terms of his commitment order. The juvenile argu…
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
BERANEK, Judge.
This is a juvenile delinquency case in which the appellant claims that the trial court should have suppressed his confession. This point is without merit. See Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1980), and Batch v. State, 405 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The appellant’s reliance on Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), is misplaced in view of the Supreme Court’s later opinion in Doerr and the change in the statute in question.
Appellant also claims error in that the trial court is asserted to have (1) ordered commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and (2) retained jurisdiction to simultaneously effectuate restitution to the victim. Appellant contends this order is erroneous in view of our decision in In the Interest of M.S., 429 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and the First District’s decision in M.V.D. v. State, 414 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We find both those cases distinguishable, because the former deals with a fine
while the latter concerns restitution as a condition of commitment. The present case thus appears to fall within the reasoning of R.D.B. v. State, 404 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which authorized restitution as a condition of aftercare.
In any case, and of primary importance, the commitment order does not mention restitution, and appellant’s arguments are based only upon the court's oral statements at the time of commitment. Clearly, the written order under which appellant is committed does not require restitution. The order merely retains jurisdiction. No error has been made to appear in this regard and the matter is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur. . The fíne — which was vacated — was payable to the State.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), and the cases interpreting it, do not require that the order be reduced to writing. See Simmons v. State, 625 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Weckerle v. State, 579 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); In re E.J., 438 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)(finding no error in a juvenile delinquency case where court made oral statement retaining jurisdiction to reserve restitution, but the written commitment order did not address restitution). “[A]n order of restitution must be impo…
Authorities Cited
- Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1980)
- Rogert L. Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Batch v. State, 405 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- M. v. D., 414 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of M.S., 429 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In the Interest of R.D.B. v. State, 404 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)