IN THE INTEREST OF B.A., 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 juvenile appellant challenges a delinquency order finding him guilty of petit theft and sentenced to community control, arguing he is entitled to credit for time served in secure detention pending disposition. The court affirms, holding that community control is not equivalent to incarceration for purposes of crediting time served under Florida statute.
A juvenile is not entitled to credit for time served in secure detention against a community control sentence because community control is not equivalent to a sentence of imprisonment, and crediting time served applies only when a defendant is sentenced to institutional incarceration.
[1] Time spent in secure detention pending disposition of a case is not automatically credited against a subsequent community control sentence.
[2] Community control is not the functional equivalent of jail or imprisonment for the purpose of mandatory credit for time served.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We disagree with appellant's position that a community control sentence is equivalent to a sentence of imprisonment against which credit is mandated, pursuant to section 921.161, Florida Statutes, for time served in confinement pending disposition of the case.”
Statement of the core legal issue and the court's holding regarding the non-equivalence of community control to imprisonment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was placed in secure detention for approximately 38 days pending disposition of his petit theft case. He was found guilty of petit theft but…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals an order finding him guilty of petit theft but withholding adjudication of delinquency, and placing him on community control. We affirm.
Appellant has not challenged his placement, pursuant to section 39.032, Florida Statutes, in secure detention for approximately 38 days pending disposition of his case. He cites error only in the trial court’s denial of his request for credit for time served in secure detention against his community control sentence. He asserts that secure detention has the character of jail,1 and community control is the equivalent of a prison sentence.2 On that rationale, he claims entitlement, pursuant to section 921.161, Florida Statutes, to credit on his community control sentence for time spent in secure detention.
We disagree with appellant’s position that a community control sentence is equivalent to a sentence of imprisonment against which credit is mandated, pursuant to section 921.161, Florida Statutes, for time served in confinement pending disposition of the case. Compare Mathews v. State, 529 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which the court disagreed with that defendant’s contention that community control is the functional equivalent of jail. See also Braxton v. State, 524 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which, in consideration of Fourth Amendment rights, the court refused to equate community control with incarceration. Therefore, since appellant was not sentenced to institutional incarceration and in consideration of the rehabilitative purpose of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, we find no basis for concluding that appellant is entitled to credit on his community control sentence for time served in secure detention.3.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Compare Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1987), in which the court determined that involuntary placement in a state mental institution prior to trial amounted to sufficient confinement to entitle the defendant to credit for time served against his later imposed prison sentence.
. He relies upon State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987), in which the court determined that for sentencing guidelines considerations under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701, community control is not akin to probation.
. This case does not involve and we do not hereby address the question of whether appellant’s commitment to secure detention would entitle him to credit for time served if, upon sentencing, he had been committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for confinement in jail or prison.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.K. v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…y is one year and to allow appellant credit for time served in secure detention prior to her adjudication on this offense. See E.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Gainer v. State, 693 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); In Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). [*1012] Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the disposition order to limit the commitment term to one year with credit for time served in secure detention against the period of commitment. AFFIRMED in part, REV…
-
Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…lorida Statutes, against his community control term for time served in jail prior to sentencing. This argument has been previously rejected based on the fact that community control is not the equivalent of incarceration. See In the Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125, 125-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Depson v. State, 363 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 1076, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Chancey v. State, 614 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). KLEIN, J. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Se…
-
Bacon v. State, 620 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…where we held that a defendant was not entitled to credit for time served on community control. There, we viewed community control as a hybrid concept, less restrictive than prison, but more severe than probation. See also, In the Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (community control not the functional equivalent of imprisonment against which credit is mandated); Braxton v. State, 524 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (court refused to equate community control with institutional incarceration,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1987)
- Mathews v. State, 529 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Braxton v. State, 524 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)