C.D., A JUVENILE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed a juvenile's delinquency finding but reversed the written disposition. The court found that the written order did not conform to the oral pronouncement made at the hearing, which is controlling.
The court held that the oral pronouncement controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the written order. Therefore, the written disposition was reversed and remanded to conform to the oral pronouncement.
[1] A written disposition of a case must conform to the court's oral pronouncement at the time of the adjudicatory hearing.
[2] Where there is a difference between a court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.
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“Because the written adjudicatory order does not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a written order which so conforms.”
Establishes the basis for reversing and remanding the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was found delinquent. The written order detailing the adjudication and disposition did not match the oral pronouncement made by the court d…
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.
MILLER, J.
UPON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR We affirm the finding of delinquency under review, save the written disposition of the case. See Art. X, § 9, Fla. Const. (“Repeal of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution for any crime committed before such repeal.”); see also Hicks v. State, 277 So. 3d 153, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“If a new rule of law is substantive, it is not retroactive, and a party is not entitled to the benefit of the new rule unless it preceded the crime or cause of action.”) (citation omitted); R.A.M. of S. Fla. v. WCI Cmtys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 1210, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[T]he task of interpreting the statute is guided by the rule of statutory construction which establishes a presumption against the retroactive application of substantive law—as distinct from procedural or remedial law-in the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent that the statute be given retroactive effect.”) (citations omitted); J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“We find unmeritorious defendant's claim of error in his adjudication of delinquency. It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means.”) (citations omitted); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“It is generally held that an officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field, and marijuana in particular, can identify a substance as marijuana by its appearance and odor.”) (citations omitted).
Pursuant to the State’s commendable partial confession of error and our independent review of the record, because the written adjudicatory order does not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a written order which so conforms. See Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Where there is a difference between the court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”) (citation omitted).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swift v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
-
Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., 431 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…eed, the appellate court may affirm even when the appellee does not serve an answer brief." (citing Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999) and MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 1970))); Hicks v. State, 277 So. 3d 153, 156 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("Nor can we accept the dissent's view that we are acting unfairly by 'sua sponte raising new issues.' There is a difference between raising new grounds for reversal (which we should not do) and affirming based on any ba…
-
Elisamuel Caballero-Quinones v. Wilder (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- R.A.M. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. WCI Cmtys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Swift v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)