D.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.B. v. State

467 So. 2d 830, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1077, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13685

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1656

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 467 So. 2d 830 (D.B. 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

D.B. v. State, 467 So. 2d 830, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1077, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13685 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

Because there is competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that the child committed a criminal battery, we affirm the order of the trial court which withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed D.B. on community control. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Tsavaris v. State, 414 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1983).

Furthermore, appellant’s contention that the trial judge disregarded the notice and hearing requirements of section 27.-56(7), Florida Statutes (1983), and thereby improperly assessed an attorney’s fee in the amount of $500, would be correct had such an order been rendered. Hankerson v. State, 464 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and cases cited therein. However, our inspection of the record reveals that while the judge orally announced his intention to enter such an order, he never did so. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g), 9.140(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.

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

DANAHY, Judge.

Because there is competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that the child committed a criminal battery, we affirm the order of the trial court which withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed D.B. on community control. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Tsavaris v. State, 414 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1983).

Furthermore, appellant’s contention that the trial judge disregarded the notice and hearing requirements of section 27.-56(7), Florida Statutes (1983), and thereby improperly assessed an attorney’s fee in the amount of $500, would be correct had such an order been rendered. Hankerson v. State, 464 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and cases cited therein. However, our inspection of the record reveals that while the judge orally announced his intention to enter such an order, he never did so. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g), 9.140(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 So. 2d 830, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1077, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/db-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack