A.D. v. State
This text of 740 So. 2d 565 (A.D. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
W. SHARP, Judge.
A.D. appeals from orders of commitment after he pled guilty and nolo con-tendere in three cases.1 He was adjudicated delinquent and the court committed him to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice, at a restrictiveness level six consistent with the recommendations of the Department. After violating several conditions of community control, A.D. was re-arrested and pled no contest to the violation. At the disposition hearing, the court committed him to restrictiveness level eight, in excess of the Department’s recommendations. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because A.D.’s constitutional right to counsel was violated at the disposition hearing.
A juvenile has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel at the critical stages of delinquency proceedings, and the denial of that right is fundamental error. J.R.V. v. State, 715 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In this case, A.D. had the assistance of the public defender, Barry Hepner, at the plea hearing and at that hearing A.D. executed a plea agreement. However, at the dispositional hearing on August 3, 1998, he was represented by Mercedes Leon-Durham, a certified legal intern. The record is silent concerning A.D.’s knowing or intelligent waiver of his right to legal representation and there is no showing or assertion that a supervising attorney was present at the disposition [567]*567hearing. Compare S.B. v. State, 670 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we have no alternative but to quash the dispositional order and remand for further proceedings. U.S. Const. Amend. VI and XIV; Art. 1 § 9 and 19(a), Fla. Const.; §§ 985.203(1) and 985.23(l)(a), (b), (c), and (d); Fla. Bar. R. ll-1.2(b)(e). See L.R. v. State, 698 So.2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); In the Interest of J.H., 580 So.2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), approved, 596 So.2d 453 (Fla.1992). We do not apply Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. granted, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998) to fundamental sentencing errors committed in juvenile proceedings. T.G. v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D216, 741 So.2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Dispositional Order QUASHED; REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
740 So. 2d 565, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ad-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.