J. W. H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J. W. H. v. State

402 So. 2d 562, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1981

DocketNo. YY-177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 402 So. 2d 562 (J. W. 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

J. W. H. v. State, 402 So. 2d 562, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

J. W. H. raises two points on appeal concerning the legality of his order of disposition adjudicating him delinquent for having committed a simple battery. The first point, contending that the judge who presided at the disposition proceeding did not adequately ascertain the facts which had previously taken place, is controlled by McCoy v. State, 344 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and Castor v. State, 351 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and we find it without merit.

[563]*563We agree with the appellant’s contention in point two that the length of appellant’s term of punishment stated in the order of disposition exceeded the maximum amount allowable under Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1979). See G. W. M. v. State, 391 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Moreover, the state concedes error as to this point. Accordingly, we reverse the cause and remand with directions that the lower court shall modify its order of disposition by confining its punishment to the parameters required by Section 39.11(3).

MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

J. W. H. raises two points on appeal concerning the legality of his order of disposition adjudicating him delinquent for having committed a simple battery. The first point, contending that the judge who presided at the disposition proceeding did not adequately ascertain the facts which had previously taken place, is controlled by McCoy v. State, 344 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and Castor v. State, 351 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and we find it without merit.

[563]*563We agree with the appellant’s contention in point two that the length of appellant’s term of punishment stated in the order of disposition exceeded the maximum amount allowable under Section 39.11(3), Florida Statutes (1979). See G. W. M. v. State, 391 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Moreover, the state concedes error as to this point. Accordingly, we reverse the cause and remand with directions that the lower court shall modify its order of disposition by confining its punishment to the parameters required by Section 39.11(3).

MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 So. 2d 562, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-w-h-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack