F.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

F.H. v. State

99 So. 3d 547, 2011 WL 3300332, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12101

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-2794

StatusPublished

This text of 99 So. 3d 547 (F.H. 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

F.H. v. State, 99 So. 3d 547, 2011 WL 3300332, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12101 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

F.H., appeals from a delinquency order rendered September 8, 2010. The public defender filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). F.H. was provided an opportunity to file a pro se statement of points but did not do so. [548]*548The Petition for Delinquency in this case consisted of three counts: Count I-Battery of a police officer, a third-degree felony; Count II-resisting an officer with violence, a third-degree felony; and Count Ill-resisting an officer without violence, a misdemeanor. A bench trial was held September 8, 2010, during which the State agreed to nolle pros Count III. F.H. moved for a judgment of dismissal on the remaining counts, which motion was denied. At the conclusion of the case, the trial court stated, “I am finding F.H. not delinquent on Count Two, and delinquent on Count One.”

During the October 14, 2010, disposition hearing, the following occurred:

JUDGE CYNAMON: I’m going to pronounce your disposition at this time,

[F.H.]. And I’m going to place you on probation for a period of one year.

[[Image here]]

I am waiving the cost of care based on your affidavit, which means you will not be paying for probation supervision.

THE MOTHER: Could it be probations made, Your Honor, which could be a with [hold] — with adjudication with the—

JUDGE CYNAMON: I did withhold adjudication.

THE MOTHER: You did?

JUDGE CYNAMON: I did.

(emphasis added).

The September 8, 2010, adjudicatory order does not, however, reflect that adjudication was withheld. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions that it enter a corrected written adjudicatory order to reflect that adjudication was withheld as to Count I. See N.G. v. State, 50 So.3d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (remanding to the trial court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement); accord, Parajon v. State, 50 So.3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed and case remanded with directions.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

F.H., appeals from a delinquency order rendered September 8, 2010. The public defender filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). F.H. was provided an opportunity to file a pro se statement of points but did not do so. [548]*548The Petition for Delinquency in this case consisted of three counts: Count I-Battery of a police officer, a third-degree felony; Count II-resisting an officer with violence, a third-degree felony; and Count Ill-resisting an officer without violence, a misdemeanor. A bench trial was held September 8, 2010, during which the State agreed to nolle pros Count III. F.H. moved for a judgment of dismissal on the remaining counts, which motion was denied. At the conclusion of the case, the trial court stated, “I am finding F.H. not delinquent on Count Two, and delinquent on Count One.”

During the October 14, 2010, disposition hearing, the following occurred:

JUDGE CYNAMON: I’m going to pronounce your disposition at this time,

[F.H.]. And I’m going to place you on probation for a period of one year.

[[Image here]]

I am waiving the cost of care based on your affidavit, which means you will not be paying for probation supervision.

THE MOTHER: Could it be probations made, Your Honor, which could be a with [hold] — with adjudication with the—

JUDGE CYNAMON: I did withhold adjudication.

THE MOTHER: You did?

JUDGE CYNAMON: I did.

(emphasis added).

The September 8, 2010, adjudicatory order does not, however, reflect that adjudication was withheld. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions that it enter a corrected written adjudicatory order to reflect that adjudication was withheld as to Count I. See N.G. v. State, 50 So.3d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (remanding to the trial court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement); accord, Parajon v. State, 50 So.3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed and case remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 547, 2011 WL 3300332, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fh-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack