D.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.T. v. State

820 So. 2d 1091, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10079

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 17, 2002·No. No. 4D01-2677·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A juvenile appeals from disposition orders, which committed her to a level 8, high risk residential treatment program on first degree misdemeanor charges. She argues, and the State agrees, that the disposition orders should be corrected to limit the term of her commitment to an indeterminate length of time not to exceed one year, which is the maximum term an adult could serve for the same offense. See § 985.231, Fla. Stat. (2001); L.K. v. State, 729 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We agree.

In addition, the juvenile argues, and the State agrees, that she must be given credit for time served in juvenile detention awaiting placement. However, that credit should be applied from the end of the commitment period as the length of the commitment is indeterminate and only limited to the maximum term that could be served by an adult.

The case is reversed and remanded for correction of the disposition orders in accordance with this opinion.

STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A juvenile appeals from disposition orders, which committed her to a level 8, high risk residential treatment program on first degree misdemeanor charges. She argues, and the State agrees, that the disposition orders should be corrected to limit the term of her commitment to an indeterminate length of time not to exceed one year, which is the maximum term an adult could serve for the same offense. See § 985.231, Fla. Stat. (2001); L.K. v. State, 729 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We agree.

In addition, the juvenile argues, and the State agrees, that she must be given credit for time served in juvenile detention awaiting placement. However, that credit should be applied from the end of the commitment period as the length of the commitment is indeterminate and only limited to the maximum term that could be served by an adult.

The case is reversed and remanded for correction of the disposition orders in accordance with this opinion.

STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

D.T. v. State, 820 So. 2d 1091, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10079 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

820 So. 2d 1091 (D.T. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related