J.C.R. v. State

785 So. 2d 550, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 2001 WL 166990
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 21, 2001·No. No. 4D00-423·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinions

STEVENSON, J.

J.C.R., a minor, appeals an order of the trial court withholding adjudication of delinquency, but placing the child on community control for an indeterminate amount of time not to exceed the child’s twenty-first birthday and ordering the child’s father to pay monthly restitution. Appellant attacks both the community control and restitution aspects of the disposition. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant first contends that since the trial court elected to withhold adjudication of delinquency, the term of community control could not exceed his nineteenth birthday. The State concedes that this is, in fact, the law. See § 985.201(4)(a)-(b), Fla.Stat. (1999); S.R.A. v. State, 766 So.2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 772 So.2d 1217 (Fla.2000). Despite its concession, however, the State argues that we should nonetheless affirm, pointing out that no objection was raised during the proceedings below. We agree that preservation is generally required in juvenile proceedings,1 but we conclude that the sentence imposed is akin to one that exceeds the statutory maximum and is the type of fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on appeal absent preservation.

In most cases, a fundamental sentencing error will be one that affects the determination of the length of the sentence such that the interests of justice will not be served if the error remains uncorrected.

Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 100 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the imposition of a community control sanction that does not exceed J.C.R.’s nineteenth birthday.

As for J.C.R.’s contention that the law does not permit the trial court to both withhold adjudication of delinquency and order the child’s parents to pay restitution, here, we agree with the State’s contention that the error was neither preserved nor fundamental. See J.S. v. State, 717 So.2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Thus, on that point, we affirm.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DELL and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

J.C.R. v. State, 785 So. 2d 550, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 2001 WL 166990 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

785 So. 2d 550 (J.C.R. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DDM v. State
894 So. 2d 1081 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Mincey v. State
889 So. 2d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Fisher v. State
840 So. 2d 325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
I.B. v. State
816 So. 2d 230 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
JJT v. State
810 So. 2d 548 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
J.S. v. State
805 So. 2d 37 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
A.M. v. State
790 So. 2d 1233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
AM Ex Rel. DM v. State
790 So. 2d 1233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
JCR v. State
785 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)