State v. D.S.

760 So. 2d 957, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1026, 2000 WL 140068
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 9, 2000
DocketNo. 99-765
StatusPublished

This text of 760 So. 2d 957 (State v. D.S.) 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
State v. D.S., 760 So. 2d 957, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1026, 2000 WL 140068 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinions

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After the juvenile respondent entered a nolo plea to possessing spray paint cans, in violation of Miami Dade County Code, section 21-30.01(g) (1997), see D.P. v. State, 705 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the trial court found him guilty but, noting that he had already spent a night in juvenile detention (which had had an appropriately sobering effect upon him), withheld adjudication and issued only a judicial warning against him. The state appeals from this disposition because, it claims, it did not conform to what it states are the “minimum mandatory” requirements of the ordinance that such a violation must be punished by a “term in jail,” a fíne, or both.1 We find, however, that by, in effect, crediting the juvenile for “time served” in detention,2 the court satisfied the alleged jail time requirement. See L.K v. State, 729 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gainer v. State, 693 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); E.R. v. State, 584 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). This holding makes it unnecessary3 for us to reach the varied and difficult issues surrounding the effect of the sentencing aspect of the ordinance provision on juvenile cases, including the constitutional validity and applicability of Chapter 98-93, section 1, Laws of Florida (1998), creating section 806.13(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), which purports to require that juvenile dispositions conform to such a prescription.4 It is not inappropriate to suggest, [959]*959however, that we would resist any view of the law which interferes with the right and duty of juvenile judges to render such appropriate dispositions concerning the particular child and situation before him as the thoughtful decision in this case.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gainer v. State
693 So. 2d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Rodriguez
673 So. 2d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
State v. Valdes
677 So. 2d 107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Massey v. State
760 So. 2d 956 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
City of St. Petersburg v. English
54 Fla. 585 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
E.R. v. State
584 So. 2d 158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
D.P. v. State
705 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
L.K. v. State
729 So. 2d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
760 So. 2d 957, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1026, 2000 WL 140068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ds-fladistctapp-2000.