In the Interest of T.D.J. v. State

725 So. 2d 466, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1369, 1999 WL 77751
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 12, 1999
DocketNo. 98-2540
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 466 (In the Interest of T.D.J. 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
In the Interest of T.D.J. v. State, 725 So. 2d 466, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1369, 1999 WL 77751 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand for the entry of separate commitment orders, one for each offense, see A.F. v. State, 718 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and direct that the commitment order for the offense of battery must not exceed one year, see M.J.P. v. State, — So.2d -, 22 Fla.L. Weekly D2090, 1997 WL 536011 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept.3, 1997), approved 717 So.2d 459 (Fla.1998); C.P. v. State, 674 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); T.G. v. State, 677 So.2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In all other respects, we affirm.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DP v. State
730 So. 2d 414 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
725 So. 2d 466, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1369, 1999 WL 77751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-tdj-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.