P.M. v. Carter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

P.M. v. Carter

658 So. 2d 188, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8426, 1995 WL 467344

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1995

DocketNo. 95-2195

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 188 (P.M. v. Carter) 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

P.M. v. Carter, 658 So. 2d 188, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8426, 1995 WL 467344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By writ of habeas corpus, P.M., a juvenile, seeks release from detention at the Dade Juvenile Detention Center. Pursuant to a hearing on the state’s detention petition, the trial court found that petitioner met the criteria enumerated in section 39.044(2)(f)(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). That section requires a finding that the juvenile “ ‘[h]as a record of law violation prior to court hearings.’” As the First District observed in D.B. v. State, 544 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this provision requires a finding that the law violations were committed “between the time of an arrest or initial detention and a final hearing on the charges.” Id. at 1109. Here, there were no such violations, however, the trial court was under the mistaken belief that a violation of a the law at any time in the past would justify continued detention. As the court noted in D.B., such a construction effectively removes the phrase “prior to court hearings” from a fair reading of the statute. The state agrees. Because the trial judge ordered petitioner detained on an erroneous basis, we grant the petition and order the petitioner discharged forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

By writ of habeas corpus, P.M., a juvenile, seeks release from detention at the Dade Juvenile Detention Center. Pursuant to a hearing on the state’s detention petition, the trial court found that petitioner met the criteria enumerated in section 39.044(2)(f)(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). That section requires a finding that the juvenile “ ‘[h]as a record of law violation prior to court hearings.’” As the First District observed in D.B. v. State, 544 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this provision requires a finding that the law violations were committed “between the time of an arrest or initial detention and a final hearing on the charges.” Id. at 1109. Here, there were no such violations, however, the trial court was under the mistaken belief that a violation of a the law at any time in the past would justify continued detention. As the court noted in D.B., such a construction effectively removes the phrase “prior to court hearings” from a fair reading of the statute. The state agrees. Because the trial judge ordered petitioner detained on an erroneous basis, we grant the petition and order the petitioner discharged forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 188, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8426, 1995 WL 467344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pm-v-carter-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack