T.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.W. v. State

775 So. 2d 1017, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 2001 WL 60850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-2706

StatusPublished

This text of 775 So. 2d 1017 (T.W. 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.W. v. State, 775 So. 2d 1017, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 2001 WL 60850 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

T.W., an eleven year-old, appeals a juvenile disposition order entered after adjudications of what would have been, if committed by an adult, a first-degree misdemeanor, a third-degree felony, and a second-degree felony. The disposition order provides for level 6 commitment of indeterminate length. See T.C. v. State, 736 So.2d 698, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The law is well established that disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal and remand for entry of new orders.”). The state concedes error. See N.B. v. State, 746 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); KM.P. v. State, 735 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); B.K.W. v. State, 732 So.2d 447, 447-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We reverse and remand for entry of separate disposition orders for each offense.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

T.W., an eleven year-old, appeals a juvenile disposition order entered after adjudications of what would have been, if committed by an adult, a first-degree misdemeanor, a third-degree felony, and a second-degree felony. The disposition order provides for level 6 commitment of indeterminate length. See T.C. v. State, 736 So.2d 698, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The law is well established that disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment or community control that exceed the statutory maximum for the offenses constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal and remand for entry of new orders.”). The state concedes error. See N.B. v. State, 746 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); KM.P. v. State, 735 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); B.K.W. v. State, 732 So.2d 447, 447-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We reverse and remand for entry of separate disposition orders for each offense.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 So. 2d 1017, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 2001 WL 60850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tw-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack