M.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.T. v. State

805 So. 2d 76, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 228, 2002 WL 54409

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-85

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 76 (M.T. 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

M.T. v. State, 805 So. 2d 76, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 228, 2002 WL 54409 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the disposition order on appeal. See C.W. v. State, 793 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, we agree with appellant that, after witholding adjudication of delinquency, the trial court erred in failing to specify that the maximum period of time he may serve on community control is until his nineteenth birthday. See S.R.A. v. State, 766 So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that where adjudication is withheld, the trial court may impose an indeterminate sentence of community control that cannot go beyond a child’s nineteenth birthday). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make this correction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED, in part.

STONE, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the disposition order on appeal. See C.W. v. State, 793 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, we agree with appellant that, after witholding adjudication of delinquency, the trial court erred in failing to specify that the maximum period of time he may serve on community control is until his nineteenth birthday. See S.R.A. v. State, 766 So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that where adjudication is withheld, the trial court may impose an indeterminate sentence of community control that cannot go beyond a child’s nineteenth birthday). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make this correction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED, in part.

STONE, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 76, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 228, 2002 WL 54409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mt-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack