J.A.D. ex rel. J.G.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.A.D. ex rel. J.G.D. v. State

855 So. 2d 1199, 2003 WL 22316764

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2003

DocketNo. 5D02-3202

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 855 So. 2d 1199 (J.A.D. ex rel. J.G.D. 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.A.D. ex rel. J.G.D. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1199, 2003 WL 22316764 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant pled nolo contendere to, and was adjudicated delinquent on, the charge of battery by a detained person in violation of section 784.082, Florida Statutes. The trial court determined that the defendant met the criteria for being a “serious or habitual juvenile offender” and therefore committed him to a maximum risk residential program until his 21st birthday. See § 985.03(48), Fla. Stat. (2001). However, the disposition order contains a scrivener’s error in its reference to section 985.08(48)(a)(13), Florida Statutes since subsection (a)(13) refers to lewd and lascivious acts and the defendant was not charged with committing a lewd or lascivious act. The State properly eon-cedes the existence of this error, explaining that the statutory reference should be to section 985.03(48)(b), which applies to juveniles who have committed at least two previous delinquent acts. We affirm the instant disposition order but remand to the trial court for correction of the statutory reference.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant pled nolo contendere to, and was adjudicated delinquent on, the charge of battery by a detained person in violation of section 784.082, Florida Statutes. The trial court determined that the defendant met the criteria for being a “serious or habitual juvenile offender” and therefore committed him to a maximum risk residential program until his 21st birthday. See § 985.03(48), Fla. Stat. (2001). However, the disposition order contains a scrivener’s error in its reference to section 985.08(48)(a)(13), Florida Statutes since subsection (a)(13) refers to lewd and lascivious acts and the defendant was not charged with committing a lewd or lascivious act. The State properly eon-cedes the existence of this error, explaining that the statutory reference should be to section 985.03(48)(b), which applies to juveniles who have committed at least two previous delinquent acts. We affirm the instant disposition order but remand to the trial court for correction of the statutory reference.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 So. 2d 1199, 2003 WL 22316764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jad-ex-rel-jgd-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack