IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1993-08-23
No. 93-265
ERVIN, JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
622 So. 2d 1163 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that section 960.20 does not authorize the imposition of costs when adjudication of delinquency is withheld.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor, adjudication was withheld, and costs were imposed under section 960.20. Appellant appealed the imposi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, A.P., pled nolo contendere to improper exhibition of a weapon, a first-degree misdemeanor. Section 790.10, Fla. Stat. (1991). Adjudication of delinquency was withheld, and appellant was referred to the Juvenile Alternative Services Program (JASP). As sanctions, appellant was required to perform twenty hours of community service, to write an essay, to attend law education class, and to possess no weapon. In addition, appellant was directed to pay costs of $50, pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). Appellant contends that section 960.20 does not authorize the imposition of costs when adjudication of delinquency is withheld. We agree, and reverse the order imposing costs.

We find our disposition of this case is controlled by this court’s decision in T.J. v. State, 619 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In T.J., the court held that when adjudication of delinquency is withheld, the court is not authorized to assess costs pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes. The court stated in pertinent part:

Attributing their ordinary meaning to the words used in section 960.20, we find no ambiguity inherent in the statutory language, for it clearly means that the court is authorized to assess $50 costs against a juvenile charged by petition for delinquency only (1) where the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent for violating a criminal law defining a felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense, or any municipal or county ordinance that adopts by reference any misdemeanor under state law, ...

... Lacking the required adjudication of delinquency, the assessment of $50 costs against T.J. was beyond the court’s authority specified in section 960.20.

Because in this case, as in T.J., adjudication of delinquency was withheld, the assessment of $50 costs exceeded the authority provided in section 960.20. Accordingly, the order imposing costs is reversed.

ERVIN, JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • B.R. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …iolation of any city or county ordinance which adopts by reference any misdemeanor under state law. When adjudication of delinquency is withheld, the court is not authorized to assess costs pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes. AP. v. State, 622 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); T.J. v. State, 619 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Since adjudication of delinquency was withheld in this ease, the assessment of costs pursuant to section 960.20 was improper. Accordingly, we affirm the order finding B.R. guil…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw