T.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.P. v. State

674 So. 2d 867, 1996 WL 274132

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1996

DocketNo. 94-04148

StatusPublished

This text of 674 So. 2d 867 (T.P. 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.P. v. State, 674 So. 2d 867, 1996 WL 274132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

In this Anders appeal, appellant challenges the trial court order that adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on community control for battering a teacher at his junior high school. Since we have found no error in appellant’s adjudication, but have found a minor error in sentencing, we affirm appellant’s adjudication, but remand for clarification of that error.

The precise term of appellant’s probation was not specified. While it is true that the term would, of necessity, expire at the date of appellant’s majority, we remand this portion of the sentence and direct that the trial court set the term at no longer than either the five-year maximum that an adult could be ordered to serve for the offense (battery of a school board employee) or the number of years until appellant’s nineteenth birthday, whichever is less. See F.R. v. State, 473 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); M.V. v. State, 507 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

In this Anders appeal, appellant challenges the trial court order that adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on community control for battering a teacher at his junior high school. Since we have found no error in appellant’s adjudication, but have found a minor error in sentencing, we affirm appellant’s adjudication, but remand for clarification of that error.

The precise term of appellant’s probation was not specified. While it is true that the term would, of necessity, expire at the date of appellant’s majority, we remand this portion of the sentence and direct that the trial court set the term at no longer than either the five-year maximum that an adult could be ordered to serve for the offense (battery of a school board employee) or the number of years until appellant’s nineteenth birthday, whichever is less. See F.R. v. State, 473 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); M.V. v. State, 507 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 So. 2d 867, 1996 WL 274132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tp-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack