L.M. v. State, 92-1124

Citation610 So.2d 1314
Decision Date22 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 92-1124,92-1124
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D76 L.M., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Louis O. Frost, Public Defender, and Ward L. Metzger, Juvenile Court Coordinator, Office of the Public Defender, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Wendy S. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ZEHMER, Judge.

L.M., a child, appeals an order of disposition based on his commission of a delinquent act. He contends that the condition of community control requiring him to obey all lawful and reasonable demands of his mother, including participation in church youth programs, is unlawful. We do not agree and affirm.

In December 1990, L.M., then age 13, was charged with petit theft and burglary. He entered pleas of guilty to the petit theft charge and guilty to the lesser offense of trespassing in the burglary case. The trial court ordered a predisposition investigation prior to sentencing. The resulting predisposition report included information related by L.M.'s mother to the delinquency case management counselor. She stated that she had been having problems with L.M. for several years. L.M. would not listen or do as he was told. She often has disciplined L.M., usually by placing him on restriction. She had quit her night job because L.M. would not stay at home and she felt he was too old for a baby sitter. She has assigned L.M. household responsibilities, but he would not perform them. L.M. has gotten along well with members of the community, and they have enjoyed family picnics and barbecues. They are affiliated with the New Friendship Baptist Church. She works for the Duval County School Board and has a modest annual income. She has received no income from L.M.'s father, who has not seen L.M. since the boy was 3 years old. L.M. has made poor grades in school (receiving all F's during the first two grading quarters of the 7th grade), and often has been referred to the Dean's office for disciplinary problems. He has not done his homework, has used profanity toward his teachers, has been in fights, has lied, and often has been suspended. L.M.'s mother did not suspect alcohol or drug usage, however. She indicated that commitment may be what her son needs to show him "he is headed down the wrong path." The report also reflected that L.M. was previously charged with arson, retail theft, and petit larceny; adjudication was withheld in the arson and retail theft cases, and he was referred to JASP; he was adjudicated delinquent in the petit larceny case and placed on HRS-supervised community control. The counselor's report concluded by stating that L.M. was showing signs of ungovernable behavior, and "unless firm actions are imposed, his mother will probably lose control."

At the disposition hearing on February 20, 1991, the trial court noted that the mother was affiliated with New Friendship Baptist Church and asked her whether L.M. was affiliated or involved in any youth or other church programs. She replied that he was not. Later in the hearing, the following colloquy occurred:

THE COURT: Is there any program at your church that is there, a youth program at your church?

THE MOTHER: Yes, it is but he doesn't want to go.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'm going to--I'm going to adjudicate him to be delinquent; I'm going to commit him to level 2; I'm going to require that he go to the JMI program and successfully complete it. And I want--I'm serious about that if he's not--if he's messing up I want him to be violated; okay? If you mess up I'm going to put you either in the Stop-Step or in training school. Do you understand that?

THE CHILD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Probably training school because I'll be pretty disappointed by that time. Also, I'm going to require that he enroll in and that he successfully participate in any and all youth programs they have at your church. I want you to get with the pastor.

The trial court entered written orders of adjudication and commitment, and specified as a condition of community control that L.M. "obey all lawful and reasonable demands of guardian and assigned counselor" and "mother shall enroll child in youth programs at church."

L.M. appealed the validity of the community control condition that L.M. "get with the pastor" of his mother's church and enroll in any and all of its youth programs. We held this condition invalid because it required a community controllee to submit to a course of religious instruction in contravention of the First Amendment. In the Interest of L.M. v. State, 587 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We explained that this condition unlawfully "delegate[d] to the pastor of a church the judicial function of determining those programs best suited to meet [L.M.'s] rehabilitation needs." Id. at 649. The opinion further stated, however, that on remand the trial court could impose alternate conditions of community control, including the requirement that L.M. attend youth programs of secular content.

In the meantime, L.M. had committed another act of delinquency, and a consolidated hearing was held in the remanded case with the new prosecution on a charge of loitering and prowling. L.M. pleaded guilty to this new charge and the following colloquy took place:

THE COURT: Ma'am, are you still affiliated with the New Friendship Baptist Church?

THE MOTHER: Yes.

THE COURT: And I believe--I don't remember exactly what happened. Way back when I sentenced him, I ordered him to participate in youth programs at that church.

THE MOTHER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And did you want him to do that back then?

THE MOTHER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I guess a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and he's been picked up for some new crimes as well.

At that point, the court realized that L.M.'s term of community control for the previous cases had already expired. The attorneys agreed that the court need not amend those sentences on remand, and that the court need only sentence L.M. for the new offense. The hearing continued:

THE COURT: ... I'm going to place him--I'm going to adjudicate him delinquent, place him on community control. Now, these are the conditions of your community control. Number one, you must perform forty-five hours--this is a second degree?

MS. STEELY [L.M.'s ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Forty-five hours of community service within the next forty-five days. Number two, you must obey all reasonable rules of your mother and your HRS counselor. Do you understand, sir?

THE CHILD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Number three, you must--you're under a curfew--how old are you?

THE CHILD: Fourteen.

THE COURT: You're under a curfew of 7:00 o'clock every evening. You must be back in the home by 7:00 o'clock every evening. Do you understand, sir?

THE CHILD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: There's no roaming the streets and the only exception is for school or church activities or if you're somewhere with you[r] mother. Do you understand, sir?

THE CHILD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, also, I'm going to require--I'm going to try this a little bit different this time. I'm going to require that you obey all the reasonable demands of your parent including participating in community or church programs to be chosen by your mother. Do you understand that, sir?

THE CHILD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And I'll put the exact wording in the order. Is there any other request from the State or the defense?

MR. METZGER [Co-Counsel for L.M.]: Are you referring specifically to church youth programs that are of a secular content?

THE COURT: My order is going to read just the way I stated it. So, if you all want to appeal it, that's fine. That will be up to the mother what programs he attends. Also, I would allow them to use the time that he puts into those youth programs as community service. That can count as credit for his community service hours. All right. Is [sic] there any other requests--did I say obey all the reasonable rules of your mother and your HRS counselor and obey all laws. Any other requests from the State or defense?

MR. METZGER: We're going to object at this point to the condition that he attend youth programs whether through the church or not, as directed by his mother. Frankly, I think that violates the order that the District Court of Appeals has entered in his other cases. One of the things they say in that opinion and I'll quote from it is, "The condition is also erroneous in that it delegates to the pastor of the church the judicial function of determining those programs best for the child suited to meet Appellant's Rehabilitation needs. See Singleton vs. State." That's error. What you did is exactly one of the things that they point out in the other case, is allowing someone else to determine what particular programs it is that he would be involved with.

The second problem with it is now that you're providing that he go to a program that his mother picks, his mother may pick a program at the church. She would therefore be supported by the Court in requiring him to attend that because he can be violated if he chooses not to attend. We have no indication that the programs that the mother may pick will have a nonreligious nature. They must be secular in nature. That's one of the things that the L.M. decision says, you can't order somebody into programs that have religious content to them. You violated what the DCA has already reversed you on.

THE COURT: Well, this is quite a different order here and what I'm saying is the parent can choose and I think there is a presumption under the Florida law that the parent does have control over their child while he is a minor. I'm not delegating to a church official. I'm delegating to the mother who already has the control over her son to begin with. So, this is the order and you all are welcome to appeal it.

The written order of disposition entered pursuant to this hearing contains the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • NC v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 2 d4 Setembro d4 2004
    ...DCA 1999); C.A. v. State, 685 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and L.M. v. State, 610 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Fourth District's ......
  • NC v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 d3 Setembro d3 2002
    ...C.A. v. State, 685 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222, 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); L.M. v. State, 610 So.2d 1314, 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In reaching their results, those cases either cited to cases involving adult sentencing or to no authority at Finally, ev......
  • M.C.L. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 d3 Novembro d3 1996
    ...that we held that even a juvenile's instruction at a church facility, if parent-directed, is constitutional. L.M. v. State, 610 So.2d 1314, 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (L.M.II). The condition imposed in the instant case moreover is distinguishable from that imposed in L.M. I: The instant proba......

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