A.L.B. v. State, 1D09-2036.
Decision Date | 05 November 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 1D09-2036.,1D09-2036. |
Parties | A.L.B., a minor child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
On this direct appeal in a juvenile case, we affirm the disposition order committing A.L.B. to a moderate-risk facility despite a recommendation by the Department of Juvenile Justice that adjudication be withheld and that she be placed on probation. We do not affirm, however, without "misgivings and concerns," Washington v. State, 814 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), regarding whether the trial court complied with the strict standard set forth in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). See id. at 638 ( ). These misgivings arise from uncertainty about the interplay of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2).
Like the Washington court, we conclude that the absence of any objection at the time of sentencing, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct sentencing error before the initial brief was filed, precludes correction even of "fundamental" sentencing errors on direct appeal. See 814 So.2d at 1189-90. See also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 102, 110 (Fla.2000) ( ); Colon v. State, 869 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ( ). But a motion to correct sentencing error "may be filed by appellate counsel." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). Similarly, as to motions for correction of disposition or commitment orders, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) provides that the "motion may be filed by appellate counsel and must be served before the party's first brief is served."
No such motion was filed in the present case. In a juvenile case that is closely analogous to the present case, we certified as questions of great public importance the following:
NOTWITHSTANDING MADDOX, SHOULD AN APPELLATE COURT CORRECT A SENTENCING ERROR
A.F.E. v. State, 853 So.2d 1091, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ( ). We certify the same questions in the present case.
Today's affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's right to seek relief collaterally, see Wilson v. State, 898 So.2d 191, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Colon, 869 So.2d at 1290, although such relief may be of little practical use to appellant. See A.F.E., 853 So.2d at 1093 ().
Affirmed. Questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Powell v. State
- C.C. v. State
- Busbee v. State, 1D13–1993.
- D.A.H. v. State
-
Miscellaneous
...fails to preserve a claim that the court improperly departed from DJJ’s disposition recommendation (question certified). A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) Where the court states that it is disregarding DJJ’s moderate risk disposition and imposing a high risk disposition bec......
-
Appeals
...fails to preserve a claim that the court improperly departed from DJJ’s disposition recommendation (question certified). A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) “Contemporaneous” in the contemporaneous objection rule does not always mean “immediate.” When defense counsel is unawa......