A.M.P. v. State, 5D05-1286.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D05-1286.,5D05-1286. |
| Parties | A.M.P., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
A.M.P., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency based, in part, on her conviction of the offense of disruption of an educational institution. She appeals a $500 fine orally imposed at sentencing, but not made part of the written judgment and sentence, and she challenges an award of attorney's fees and the imposition of restitution included in the written judgment and sentence, but not orally pronounced at sentencing.
On February 25, 2004, A.M.P. got into a fight with another student in a bathroom at Winter Park High School. An assistant principal at the school broke up the fight, and A.M.P. intentionally bumped the principal with her shoulder. Based on this incident, A.M.P. was charged with battery on a school employee, disorderly conduct, and disruption of an educational institution.
At the adjudicatory hearing, the assistant principal involved in the incident testified that on the day in question, she was engaged in hall supervision of class changes. She learned of a fight between two girls in the girls' restroom directly across the hall from her station. The assistant principal walked into the bathroom, where she found both girls with their hands locked in each other's hair. She asked them several times to separate, which they finally did. A.M.P. was angry because she did not want to be at school and had problems with some of the other students, and as she walked toward the assistant principal she lightly but purposefully bumped into her with her shoulder and/or arm. The assistant principal could not recall the exact time that this incident occurred, other than to say it happened in the morning. She said it "might have been right before school had actually started," but she really did not know. When asked how much of her day was used to deal with the situation, the assistant principal responded:
Probably a couple of hours in getting students' statements, contacting parents. But it wasn't a disruption to the regular school day in that students were in class and going to their classes as they should have been. As far as my time, it was a couple of hours. But it wasn't a classroom disruption to the rest of the school.
At the close of the evidence, A.M.P. moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of disruption of an educational institution. The State argued that the evidence was sufficient to prove a prima facie case because school personnel had had to use their time to deal with the situation. Counsel stated:
[t]he fact that they had to break up this fight and they had to engage in their time and basically divert all their attention to the defendant's conduct is certainly a disruption in the educational institution, because if you didn't fight, they would be going about their ordinary course of business to be administering the school.
The court denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal.
At disposition, the court withheld an adjudication of guilt and placed A.M.P. on six months of parental probation. Over objection, the court also imposed a $500 fine, but did not state the statutory authority for the imposition of the fine. The court explained that:
the fact that she went to trial cost the taxpayers in this community a greater amount. And I like to have—fines have some relationship to the impact on the community.
The court ordered her to pay this fine at the rate of $50 per month.
A written order was entered the following day. Consistent with its oral pronouncement, the court imposed an "ADDITIONAL COURT FINE OF $500." Also, although not discussed at the disposition hearing, the order required A.M.P. to "[r]epay Orange County for attorney's fees in the amount of $287.50." Finally, among other charges, the order required payment of restitution, but did not specify an amount. With respect to each count, the order stated:
Restitution is hereby reserved CHILD TO PAY AT A RATE OF $50 PER MONTH UNTIL PAID IN FULL. JURISDICTION FOR RESTITUTION IS EXTENDED UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
After the notice of appeal was filed, A.M.P. moved the trial court under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) to remove the charge for attorney's fees and for restitution from the order of disposition, on the basis that neither charge had been orally pronounced in court. The trial court summarily denied the motion.
This case involves the interpretation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes, which provides:
(1) It is unlawful for any person:
(a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state.
Id. A number of courts, including this court, have recognized that this "statute seeks to prohibit acts which are `specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school's property.'" T.J. v. State, 867 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), quoting M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). A broad interpretation of the statute would turn virtually every infraction of school rules into a criminal act to the extent that the infraction occurred on school grounds, during school hours, and required the attention of school officials.
The statute's requirement that one must "knowingly" disrupt the functioning of an educational institution suggests that the prohibited conduct requires some sort of purposeful interference with school activities. See, e.g., S.W.W. v. State, 833 So.2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.L. v. State
...materially disrupts or interferes with normal school functions or activities.” Id. at 481 (emphasis added); see also A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (recognizing section 877.13 prohibits conduct “specifically and intentionally designed to stop or impede the progress o......
-
P.J.B. v. State
...property ...." In construing the scope of this statute, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Fifth District held in A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006), that two students fighting in a school bathroom did not disrupt the activities of the school where no classes or other ac......
-
J.J. v. State, 4D06-1135.
...had to forcibly escort J.J. from the cafeteria. In support of his motion for judgment of dismissal, J.J. relies on A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In A.M.P., the juvenile defendant got into a fight with another student in the bathroom at their high school. The assistant p......
-
M.M. v. State
...We agree. The functions of an educational institution inherently extend beyond the classroom. M.M.'s reliance upon A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), is misplaced. A.M.P. involved a fight in a high school bathroom where the evidence established there was no disruption to the......
-
Crimes
...a fight in the bathroom, and it does not impede the progress of normal school functions, the crime is not committed. A.M.P. v. State, 927 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) Living off earnings of prostitute (See Helms v. State , 38 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) for discussion of the intent requ......