A.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.R. v. State

27 So. 3d 774, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2010

DocketNo. 2D08-5250

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 So. 3d 774 (A.R. 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.

Bluebook

A.R. v. State, 27 So. 3d 774, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

A.R., a juvenile, appeals the order adjudicating him delinquent for aggravated assault, trespass, and disorderly conduct and committing him to a high-risk residential facility. We affirm his adjudication and disposition without comment, but reverse the original commitment order and remand for further proceedings.

The original order of commitment adjudicated A.R. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for offenses committed in two separate cases. On April 20, 2009, A.R. filed a motion to correct disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2). In his motion, A.R. argued that the trial court erred in not entering separate disposition orders as to each offense. On June 17, 2009, the trial court entered amended orders of commitment reflecting A.R.’s delinquency adjudication and commitment for aggravated assault and trespass in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001446 and disorderly conduct in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001659. However, because the trial court did not enter its amended orders until more than thirty days after A.R.’s rule 8.135(b)(2) motion was filed, the amended orders are nullities. See O.H. v. State, 948 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order granting relief on a motion to correct disposition error entered more than thirty days after the motion was filed is a nullity); J.M. v. State, 4 So.3d 703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[R]ule 8.135(b)(1)(B) requires the trial court to ‘file an order ruling on the motion’ within 30 days, failing which ‘the motion shall be deemed denied.’ ”). Accordingly, we reverse the original disposition order and remand to the trial court for entry of new disposition orders as to each case. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(c) (providing that “[e]aeh case requires a separate disposition order”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KELLY, Judge.

A.R., a juvenile, appeals the order adjudicating him delinquent for aggravated assault, trespass, and disorderly conduct and committing him to a high-risk residential facility. We affirm his adjudication and disposition without comment, but reverse the original commitment order and remand for further proceedings.

The original order of commitment adjudicated A.R. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for offenses committed in two separate cases. On April 20, 2009, A.R. filed a motion to correct disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2). In his motion, A.R. argued that the trial court erred in not entering separate disposition orders as to each offense. On June 17, 2009, the trial court entered amended orders of commitment reflecting A.R.’s delinquency adjudication and commitment for aggravated assault and trespass in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001446 and disorderly conduct in circuit court case number 08-CJ-001659. However, because the trial court did not enter its amended orders until more than thirty days after A.R.’s rule 8.135(b)(2) motion was filed, the amended orders are nullities. See O.H. v. State, 948 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order granting relief on a motion to correct disposition error entered more than thirty days after the motion was filed is a nullity); J.M. v. State, 4 So.3d 703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[R]ule 8.135(b)(1)(B) requires the trial court to ‘file an order ruling on the motion’ within 30 days, failing which ‘the motion shall be deemed denied.’ ”). Accordingly, we reverse the original disposition order and remand to the trial court for entry of new disposition orders as to each case. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(c) (providing that “[e]aeh case requires a separate disposition order”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 So. 3d 774, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ar-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack