Hopkins v. State

Decision Date13 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. SC10–2483.,SC10–2483.
Citation105 So.3d 470
PartiesLaveress HOPKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Carol Stafford Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom William Odom, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Consiglia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Katherine Yzquierdo McIntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.

QUINCE, J.

Laveress Hopkins seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in State v. Hopkins, 47 So.3d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in T.C. v. State, 852 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The question before us is whether the battery by detainee charge pursuant to section 784.082, Florida Statutes (2007), applies to juvenile detention centers. We answer that question in the affirmative, and find that a juvenile detention center qualifies as a “detention facility” for purposes of section 784.082. Therefore, we approve the Fourth District's decision in Hopkins and disapprove the First District's decision in T.C.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State charged Hopkins with one count of battery by detainee in violation of sections 784.03 and 784.082, Florida Statutes (2007). At the time of the alleged offense, Hopkins was detained at the St. Lucie Regional Juvenile Detention Center. By invoking section 784.082, the battery offense was reclassified from a first-degree misdemeanor, see§ 784.03(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007), to a third-degree felony.1 Hopkins moved to dismiss the battery by detainee charge, contending that a juvenile could not be lawfully charged with battery by detainee while detained in a juvenile detention facility.

A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss. While Hopkins relied on the First District's decision in T.C., which held that the battery by detainee offense under section 784.082 was inapplicable to juveniles held in juvenile facilities, the State did not rely on any case law in support of the charge. Finding section 784.082 “clear and unambiguous,” the trial court maintained that a “juvenile detention facility” was an “other detention facility” under the statute. The trial court reached this same conclusion when it read section 784.082in pari materia with “detention center or facility,” as defined in chapters 984 and 985, to mean: “a facility used pending court adjudication or disposition or execution of court order for the temporary care of a child alleged or found to have committed a violation of law.” §§ 984.03(19), 985.03(19), Fla. Stat. (2007). In addition, the trial court found significant the language used in the preamble to chapter 96–293, which enacted section 784.082: “Whereas, with the rising incidence of crime, especially juvenile crime....” Ch. 96–293, preamble, § 4, Laws of Fla. (emphasis added). As noted by the trial judge, section 784.081, Florida Statutes (2007), was also created by chapter 96–293. Section 784.081 also reclassifies assaults and batteries committed against school district employees and officials, among others. § 784.081, Fla. Stat. (2007).

Notwithstanding its findings, the trial court dismissed the battery by detainee charge based on its belief that it was bound to follow T.C.2 The trial court urged the State to appeal its decision. In its written order, the trial court noted the Fourth District's decision in J.A. v. State, 743 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which affirmed the trial court's order adjudicating a juvenile guilty of battery upon a fellow detainee in violation of sections 784.03 and 784.082, and the Fifth District's decision in J.A.D. v. State, 855 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which affirmed the trial court's adjudication of delinquency of battery by detainee pursuant to section 784.082.3 However, the trial court declined to follow J.A. and J.A.D. because T.C. “seem[ed] to be on point and controlling.”

The State appealed the trial court's order granting Hopkins' motion to dismiss. State v. Hopkins, 47 So.3d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The Fourth District reversed and remanded the case for reinstatement of the battery by detainee charge, noting that in the past it, in J.A., as well as the Fifth District in J.A.D, had “affirmed a trial court order adjudicating a juvenile guilty of battery upon a fellow detainee.” Id. at 975.

ANALYSIS

The question before this Court is whether the language “detention facility” as used in section 784.082 includes juvenile detention centers. As the issue presented is one of statutory interpretation, the standard of review is de novo. Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2007). Hopkins argues that the trial court below properly dismissed the charge in reliance on T.C.,4 which according to Hopkins, was a decision grounded on the rule of lenity. See§ 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). On the other hand, the State contends that a juvenile who commits a battery while detained in a juvenile detention facility may be properly charged with battery by detainee under section 784.082.

Juvenile detention centers are facilities used “pending court adjudication or disposition or execution of court order for the temporary care of a child alleged or found to have committed a violation of law.” See§ 985.03(19), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also§ 985.03(46), Fla. Stat. (2007) (defining [s]ecure detention center or facility” as a “physically restricting facility for the temporary care of children, pending adjudication, disposition, or placement”). On October 1, 1996, the Florida Legislature enacted section 784.082, which provides as follows:

Whenever a person who is being detained in a prison, jail, or other detention facility is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon any visitor to the detention facility or upon any other detainee in the detention facility, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:

(1) In the case of aggravated battery, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.

(2) In the case of aggravated assault, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree.

(3) In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.

(4) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.

§ 784.082, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added); see also ch. 96–293, §§ 4, 8, Laws of Fla.

Although the term “detention facility” is undefined in chapter 784, “detention center or facility,” is defined in chapter 985, which is titled “Juvenile Justice; Interstate Compact on Juveniles,” to mean:

a facility used pending court adjudication or disposition or execution of court order for the temporary care of a child alleged or found to have committed a violation of law. A detention center or facility may provide secure or nonsecure custody. A facility used for the commitment of adjudicated delinquents shall not be considered a detention center or facility.

§ 985.03(19), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also§ 984.03(19), Fla. Stat. (2007) (supplying the same definition for “detention center or facility”). By its own terms, the “detention center or facility” definition appearing in both chapters 984 and 985 is limited to each respective chapter. See§ 984.03, Fla. Stat. (2007) (“When used in this chapter....”); § 985.03, Fla. Stat. (2007) (“As used in this chapter....”).5

In construing section 784.082, we begin with the actual language in the statute because legislative intent is determined primarily from the statute's text.” See Heart of Adoptions, Inc., 963 So.2d at 198. In Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (Fla.2006), we explained:

When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent. In such instance, the statute's plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent.

Id. at 1230–31 (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64–65 (Fla.2005) (internal citation omitted)). Courts are “without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (quoting Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)).

Section 784.082 applies to a “person,” i.e., adults as well as juveniles. § 784.082, Fla. Stat. (2007). Further, the detainee must be detained in a “prison, jail, or other detention facility. § 784.082, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). We find the statute clear and unambiguous, and thus, the statute's plain and ordinary meaning controls. The plain and ordinary meaning of “detention facility” must undoubtedly include the temporary detention of juveniles in juvenile detention centers “pending court adjudication or disposition or execution of court order for the temporary care of a child alleged or found to have committed a violation of law.” See§ 985.03(19), Fla. Stat. (2007). This construction is also in keeping with the Legislature's use of the term “jail.” A “jail” is a detention center used by local governments for persons who are awaiting trial or have been convicted of misdemeanors. See Black's Law Dictionary 910 (9th. ed. 2009).

This interpretation does not lead to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent where the Legislature intended to make penalties more severe when assaults and batteries are committed in jails, prisons, or other detention...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Chubbuck
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2014
    ...of specialized treatment in the DOC as an element of subsection 921.0026(2)(d), it could have said so. See Hopkins v. State, 105 So.3d 470, 474 (Fla.2012) (“Had the Legislature intended to exclude juvenile detention centers from the scope of section 784.082, it would have said so.”); Am. Ba......
  • State v. Lewars
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2018
    ...or a private vendor." A county jail is not "operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor." See Hopkins v. State , 105 So.3d 470, 474 (Fla. 2012) ("A ‘jail’ is a detention center used by local governments for persons who are awaiting trial or have been convicted of misdemean......
  • State v. Sampaio
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 2020
    ...v. State , 991 So. 2d 803, 814 (Fla. 2008). The rule of lenity is inapplicable when a statute is unambiguous. See Hopkins v. State , 105 So. 3d 470, 475 (Fla. 2012). Here, because section 817.52 is unambiguous, the rule of lenity does not apply. Because the unambiguous language of section 8......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2017
    ...412 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) )). Here, related statutory provisions define the relevant terms. See, e.g., Hopkins v. State, 105 So.3d 470, 472–73 (Fla. 2012) (applying definitions from chapter 985 when interpreting section 784.082, Florida Statutes (2007), to determine whether a "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT