T.R. v. State

657 So. 2d 58, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7265, 1995 WL 390252
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 1995
DocketNo. 95-0053
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 58 (T.R. 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.R. v. State, 657 So. 2d 58, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7265, 1995 WL 390252 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

Upon adjudicating T.R. guilty of aggravated battery, the trial judge committed him to HRS in a low risk residential program. Five months later, HRS moved to modify the order of commitment on the grounds that the level imposed was not available for juveniles convicted of aggravated battery. After a hearing on the motion, at which the juvenile voluntarily absented himself, the judge modified the commitment from a low risk to a moderate risk residential program. T.R. appeals.1 We affirm.

T.R.’s principal argument on appeal is that subsection (8) of the disposition statute, section 39.054 Florida Statutes (1993), limited the power of the judge to modify the commitment order to the period within 60 days after its entry. T.R. relies on D.W.J. v. State, 397 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which construed the statute in the manner T.R. contends under indistinguishable facts. We disagree with the first district’s construction of subsection (8) and certify conflict.

As we read the statute, it is merely the power to suspend a commitment order and impose probation that is limited by the 60-day provision. Where the trial judge instead changes the level of the risk in a commitment because of the unavailability of the original risk level imposed, the 60-day provision is inapplicable. Instead, subsection (3) governs, and it lacks any specific time constraint on the judge’s power to make such a modification.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.

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

Related

TR v. State
677 So. 2d 270 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 So. 2d 58, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7265, 1995 WL 390252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tr-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.