E.J. v. State, 2D04-2656.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D04-2656.,2D04-2656. |
| Parties | E.J., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
E.J. appeals her adjudication of delinquency and disposition for obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency without comment, but we remand for the trial court to strike the imposition of a $3 cost for teen court because section 938.19, Florida Statutes (2003), does not apply to juvenile cases.
On June 2, 2004, the trial court placed E.J. on juvenile probation for a term not to exceed one year and imposed the following costs as a condition of probation: $50 pursuant to section 938.03, Florida Statutes (2003); $3 pursuant to section 938.17; and $3 pursuant to section 938.19. E.J. filed a notice of appeal and later filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).1 In her motion, E.J. challenged the imposition of the $3 cost pursuant to section 938.17 and the $3 cost pursuant to section 938.19. She cited section 985.221, Florida Statutes (2003), which contains a general prohibition on imposing "court fees" in any proceeding under chapter 985 against "any party to a delinquency petition or any parent or legal guardian[.]" She argued that because sections 938.17 and 938.19 did not expressly apply to juvenile cases, as does section 938.03, the trial court should strike those costs. The trial court denied the motion.
E.J. does not argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying her motion with respect to section 938.17. We note that the statute specifically provides for a $3 juvenile assessment center cost, if a county adopts an ordinance for the assessment of the mandatory cost, to be imposed upon "every person who. . . pleads guilty, nolo contendere to, or is convicted of, or adjudicated delinquent for, or has an adjudication withheld for, a felony or misdemeanor[.]" § 938.17 (emphasis added).2
With respect to section 938.19, in its order the trial court quoted the statute as follows:
[I]n each county in which a teen court has been created, a county may adopt a mandatory cost to be assessed in specific cases as provided for in subsection (1) by incorporating by reference the provisions of this section in a county ordinance. Assessments collected by the clerk of the circuit court pursuant to this section shall be deposited into an account specifically for the operation and administration of the teen court:
(1) A sum of $3, which shall be assessed as a court cost by both the circuit court and the county court in the county against every person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is convicted of, regardless of adjudication, a violation of a state criminal statute or municipal ordinance or county ordinance or who pays a fine or civil penalty for any violation of chapter 316.
(Emphasis supplied by trial court.) The trial court then stated that "E.J. was found guilty of violating a state criminal statute" and that Hillsborough County had "specifically authorized the assessment in section 938.19"; thus, the trial court denied the motion to correct sentencing error.
Unlike section 938.17, section 938.19 does not specifically authorize the imposition of the $3 cost in juvenile delinquency cases. Although E.J. was found to have committed a delinquent act by violating a criminal statute, she was not "convicted." In State v. N.P., 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1487, D1487, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2005 WL 1397383 (Fla. 2d DCA June 15, 2005), this court recognized that "juveniles are not deemed to be `convicted' by adjudications of delinquency, see § 985.228(6), Fla. Stat. (2003)," and determined that the trial court had properly refused to impose a fine that required a conviction under the criminal mischief statute. In addition, "the juvenile justice system does not recognize the concept of `guilt.'" State v. Menuto, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1173, D1174, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2005 WL 1026014 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
V.D. v. State, 5D05-1217.
...because a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, and not convicted. State v. N.P., 913 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); E.J. v. State, 912 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Moreover, the imposition of a fine or any other punishment just because a person elects to go to trial has an unsavory scent that ......
-
J.S. v. State, 5D05-453.
...language of section 775.083(1) in order to justify the imposition of a fine pursuant to that portion of the statute. See E.J. v. State, 912 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(holding that juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent was not required to pay a court cost of $3 assessed for operation and......
-
O.H. v. State
...the trial court did not rule on the motion within thirty days, the order granting the motion is a nullity. See E.J. v. State, 912 So.2d 382, 383 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that rule 8.135(b) is the juvenile version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)); Jackson v. State, 793 ......
-
S.F. v. State
...See Miami–Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, § 98– 185; K.M. v. State, 53 So.3d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); E.J. v. State, 912 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Affirmed in part; stricken in ...