T.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.A. v. State

238 So. 3d 898

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2018

DocketCase Nos. 2D17–2258

StatusPublished

This text of 238 So. 3d 898 (T.A. 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

T.A. v. State, 238 So. 3d 898 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

SLEET, Judge.

T.A. challenges the trial court's juvenile disposition order in which the court found him guilty of committing the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling, withheld adjudication, and placed him on probation. However, neither the disposition order nor the court's oral pronouncement specifies the length of the probationary term imposed.

*899Because adjudication was withheld, the trial court could impose probation for an indefinite period not to exceed T.A.'s nineteenth birthday. See R.F. v. State, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). But "[i]t is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place [T.A.] on an indefinite period of probation or whether it was an oversight that the length of probation was not specified." See K.A. v. State, 152 So.3d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We therefore reverse the disposition order to the extent that it failed to set the length of T.A.'s probation and remand for a determination of the duration of probation. See id. We affirm the disposition order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

SLEET, Judge.

T.A. challenges the trial court's juvenile disposition order in which the court found him guilty of committing the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling, withheld adjudication, and placed him on probation. However, neither the disposition order nor the court's oral pronouncement specifies the length of the probationary term imposed.

*899Because adjudication was withheld, the trial court could impose probation for an indefinite period not to exceed T.A.'s nineteenth birthday. See R.F. v. State, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). But "[i]t is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place [T.A.] on an indefinite period of probation or whether it was an oversight that the length of probation was not specified." See K.A. v. State, 152 So.3d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We therefore reverse the disposition order to the extent that it failed to set the length of T.A.'s probation and remand for a determination of the duration of probation. See id. We affirm the disposition order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 3d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ta-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack