R. B., PETITIONER,
v.
ADONIS MILES, DETENTION SUPERINTENDENT, RESPONDENT
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 cannot be held in secure detention for more than twenty-one days by stacking detention periods consecutively.
[1] A juvenile may not be held in secure detention for more than twenty-one days by stacking secure detention periods consecutively.
[2] Statutory provisions limit secure detention to twenty-one days unless an adjudicatory hearing has commenced in good faith or good cause is shown for additional time.
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 intelligenceA juvenile was ordered to home detention, then charged with a new offense while on home detention. The trial court ordered the juvenile to serve the 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 Juvenile Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner R.B., a juvenile, filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to be discharged from secure detention. By prior unpublished order, we granted the petition and advised that this opinion would follow to explain our reasoning. We conclude that, under the relevant statutory provisions, R.B. could not be held in secure detention for more than twenty-one days by stacking secure detention periods.
R.B. was charged with battery on a school board employee. At a detention hearing on February 10, 2004, R.B. was ordered to home detention until February 29, 2004. While on home detention, R.B. was taken into custody and charged with armed robbery. R.B. appeared at a detention hearing on February 16, 2004, where he was found to qualify for secure detention on this new charge.
Rather than order R.B. to serve this new twenty-one day detention period concurrent with the thirteen days R.B. had left to serve on the original detention period, the trial court ordered that the two detention periods be served consecutively. The trial court verbally rescinded its February 10, 2004, order, and ordered R.B. to serve the remainder of that detention time (until February 29, 2004) in secure detention and then start serving an additional twenty-one days in secure detention for the new charge. This would have resulted in R.B. serving thirty-four days in secure detention following the detention hearing on the new charge.
Sections 985.215(5)(c) and (g), Florida Statutes (2003), provide that a child may not be held in secure detention for more than twenty-one days unless an adjudicatory hearing for the case has been commenced in good faith by the court or good cause has been shown that the nature of the charge requires additional time for the prosecution or defense of the case. Because the record does not show that the court commenced an adjudicatory hearing within twenty-one days or that either the State or the defense asked for additional time, we grant the petition.
Petition granted.
STRINGER, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.D. v. State, 954 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…in this opinion refers to successive violations which follow the reinstatement or modification of probation rather than the violation of several conditions of a single probation order. Williams, 594 So. 2d at 274 n. 3. Similarly, in R.B. v. Miles, 871 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the Second District was asked to construe section 985.215(c) and (g), Florida Statutes (2003)4, which read in pertinent part: (c) Except as provided in paragraph (g), a child may not be held in secure ... detention care under a…
-
C. S. v. Jacoby, 893 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…theft charges. C.S. contends that his detention is longer than the permitted twenty-one days as set forth in section 985.215(5)(c), Florida Statutes. We deny relief as this case is unlike the “stacking” cases cited in the petition. R.B. v. Miles, 871 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); W.B.T. v. Esieves, 825 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Those cases hold that the detention statute, section 985.215, does not authorize a trial court to stack twenty-one day detention periods consecutively where multiple acts ar…