G.R.A. v. State, 96-874
| Decision Date | 07 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-874,96-874 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D613 G.R.A., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rebecca M. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and E. Paul Stanley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
G.R.A. appeals an order of disposition which withheld adjudication on three separate charges and placed G.R.A. on community control for one year. G.R.A. contends that the trial court erred when it used a single disposition order for the three separate offenses, and when it imposed community control for one year for disorderly conduct. We vacate the disposition order.
G.R.A. had two cases pending before the trial court: JU 95-8665 and JU 95-9209. The petition in JU 95-8665 charged G.R.A. with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the second degree. 1 The petition in JU 95-9209 charged G.R.A. with possession of cannabis 2 and resisting an officer without violence, 3 both misdemeanors of the first degree. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing in the disorderly conduct case and found G.R.A. committed the offense. G.R.A. entered a plea of no contest to possession of cannabis and pled guilty to resisting an officer without violence. At the disposition hearing, the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency as to each charge and placed G.R.A. on community control for one year. The single disposition order does not indicate whether the dispositions are to run concurrently or consecutively.
G.R.A. argues that this court has consistently held that where multiple offenses constitute the basis for a delinquency adjudication, separate disposition orders for each offense must be used. M.L.B. v. State, 673 So.2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); D.D.M. v. State, 662 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The basis for these holdings is that the court creates a general sentence when one disposition order is used. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977). Although there is no case law imposing the same requirement where adjudication is withheld, we determine the policy should be the same. Thus the trial court erred in using a single disposition order. The court should have used separate disposition orders for the two cases, specified the term of community control for each offense and indicated whether the terms are to run consecutively or concurrently.
G.R.A. next argues that the one year period of community control exceeds the 60-day maximum permissible sentence for an adult guilty of disorderly conduct, a second degree misdemeanor. 4 Section 39.054(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in pertinent part:
If supervision or a program of community service is ordered by the court, the duration of such supervision or program ... may not exceed the term for which sentence could be imposed if the child were committed for the offense, except that the duration of such supervision or program for an offense that is a misdemeanor of the second degree, ... may be for a period not to exceed 6 months. (emphasis added)
The term of commitment for a delinquent child "shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment which an adult may serve for the same offense." § 39.054(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). While section 39.054 specifies the disposition powers of a trial court when it has jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent child, D.V.S. v. State, 632 So.2d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), there is no corresponding statute governing a court's disposition powers when adjudication is withheld. But cf. E.J. v. State, 595 So.2d 282, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ()
In this case, the trial court withheld adjudication. Therefore, the limitations on the period of community control set forth in section 39.054(1)(a)1 do not apply. D.V.S. 5 Nonetheless, the court should not be able to impose a penalty harsher than that permitted if G.R.A. were adjudicated delinquent or if G.R.A. were an adult offender. Section 39.054(1)(a)1 permits the court to place a child adjudicated delinquent on a second degree misdemeanor, or its equivalent, on community control for up to six months. Similarly, the maximum probationary period for an adult found guilty of a second degree misdemeanor, whether or not the court withholds adjudication, is six months. Smith v. State, 484 So.2d 581 (Fla.1986); § 984.15(1), Fla. Stat. (1995)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DLJ v. State, 1D99-3473.
...D.P. v. State, 730 So.2d 414, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); R.L.B. v. State, 703 So.2d 1245, 1246-47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); G.R.A. v. State, 688 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); E.Y. v. State, 670 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA In this case, the trial court used one disposition order for four separate off......
-
TB v. State
...remand, a separate order must be entered for each offense. J.M.J. v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at D1673, ___ So.2d ___; G.R.A. v. State, 688 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); E.Y. v. State, 670 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). T.B. need not be present for this purely ministerial corrective act. ......
-
NW v. State
...PER CURIAM. We have for review N.W. v. State, 736 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), based on certified conflict with G.R.A. v. State, 688 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), on the issue of whether the time limitations imposed by section 39.054(1), Florida Statutes (1995), relating to juveniles who......
-
DP v. State, 97-3320.
...order must be used for each delinquent act adjudicated. See also J.K.H. v. State, 694 So.2d 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); G.R.A. v. State, 688 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and, M.L.B. v. State, 673 So.2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Because the trial court used one order instead of two as require......