L.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.F. v. State

890 So. 2d 1290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 358, 2005 WL 120361

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 2005

DocketNo. 2D03-3307

StatusPublished

This text of 890 So. 2d 1290 (L.F. 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

L.F. v. State, 890 So. 2d 1290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 358, 2005 WL 120361 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

L.F. contends the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of delinquency. We affirm that issue without further discussion. However, we agree with his complaint that the circuit court did not follow the statutorily mandated procedures at his disposition hearing. Therefore, we reverse the disposition order and remand for a new hearing.

The record reveals that the circuit court did not comply with the many specific requirements of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (2003), governing disposition hearings. Failure to honor these statutory provisions is reversible error. See G.V. v. State, 863 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); F.W. v. State, 777 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); C.B. v. State, 706 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, it is unclear from the record whether the court ordered and considered a predisposition report. See § 985.229. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing to be conducted in accordance with chapter 985.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

L.F. contends the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of delinquency. We affirm that issue without further discussion. However, we agree with his complaint that the circuit court did not follow the statutorily mandated procedures at his disposition hearing. Therefore, we reverse the disposition order and remand for a new hearing.

The record reveals that the circuit court did not comply with the many specific requirements of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (2003), governing disposition hearings. Failure to honor these statutory provisions is reversible error. See G.V. v. State, 863 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); F.W. v. State, 777 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); C.B. v. State, 706 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, it is unclear from the record whether the court ordered and considered a predisposition report. See § 985.229. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing to be conducted in accordance with chapter 985.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 1290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 358, 2005 WL 120361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lf-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack