V.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

V.F. v. State

93 So. 3d 526, 2012 WL 3101677, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12527

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-4363

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 3d 526 (V.F. 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

V.F. v. State, 93 So. 3d 526, 2012 WL 3101677, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12527 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

V.F., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory fifteen days in a secure detention facility pursuant to section 790.22(9), Florida Statutes (2011). In B. O. v. State, 25 So.3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), we held that it was error to impose the section 790.22(9) sentencing enhancement based on a guilty plea to grand theft of a firearm where the juvenile petition neither cited the statute nor alleged that, in committing the theft, the child used or possessed a firearm. As in B.O., the trial court here imposed a fifteen-day mandatory period of detention based on appellant’s plea of no contest to grand theft of a firearm. The grand theft charge in the juvenile petition here, however, suffered the same deficiency as in B. O. As such, we reverse the imposition of the mandatory fifteen-day minimum detention.

Reversed.

STEVENSON, CIKLIN, JJ., and WALSH, LISA S., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

V.F., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory fifteen days in a secure detention facility pursuant to section 790.22(9), Florida Statutes (2011). In B. O. v. State, 25 So.3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), we held that it was error to impose the section 790.22(9) sentencing enhancement based on a guilty plea to grand theft of a firearm where the juvenile petition neither cited the statute nor alleged that, in committing the theft, the child used or possessed a firearm. As in B.O., the trial court here imposed a fifteen-day mandatory period of detention based on appellant’s plea of no contest to grand theft of a firearm. The grand theft charge in the juvenile petition here, however, suffered the same deficiency as in B. O. As such, we reverse the imposition of the mandatory fifteen-day minimum detention.

Reversed.

STEVENSON, CIKLIN, JJ., and WALSH, LISA S., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 3d 526, 2012 WL 3101677, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vf-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack