J.R.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.R.R. v. State

842 So. 2d 901, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 289015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2003

DocketNo. 2D01-5748

StatusPublished

This text of 842 So. 2d 901 (J.R.R. 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.R.R. v. State, 842 So. 2d 901, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 289015 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

J.R.R. appeals the disposition orders entered in thirteen cases. He challenges the imposition of the disposition order entered in one of the thirteen cases (case number 01-000947). He also challenges his commitment to a high-risk, rather than a moderate-risk, facility as to all of the cases. We reverse and remand as to case number 01-000947, and affirm the remaining twelve cases without discussion.

We accept the State’s concession that the trial court improperly entered a disposition order in case number 01-000947 following a plea proceeding in the other twelve cases. The trial court did not conduct a plea colloquy or accept a plea in case number 01-000947. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand for further proceedings in that single case.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

J.R.R. appeals the disposition orders entered in thirteen cases. He challenges the imposition of the disposition order entered in one of the thirteen cases (case number 01-000947). He also challenges his commitment to a high-risk, rather than a moderate-risk, facility as to all of the cases. We reverse and remand as to case number 01-000947, and affirm the remaining twelve cases without discussion.

We accept the State’s concession that the trial court improperly entered a disposition order in case number 01-000947 following a plea proceeding in the other twelve cases. The trial court did not conduct a plea colloquy or accept a plea in case number 01-000947. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand for further proceedings in that single case.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 901, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 289015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jrr-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.