P.W.G. v. State, 702 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1997)
When disposing of a juvenile charge, the court properly considers uncharged criminal conduct in determining what the child needs. The court can consider all facets of the child’s life and circumstances in fashioning a disposition.
J.O.S. v. State, 689 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1997)
The court may impose restitution on a juvenile in an amount greater than the maximum dollar value defining the offense for which the child was convicted.
C.W. v. State, 655 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1995)
The court may require restitution for non-economic damages (pain and suffering) caused by the child’s offense.
C.C.B. v. State, 828 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
The desire to send the community a message is not a proper basis for disregarding DJJ’s disposition recommendation.
B.B. v. State, 820 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
Number of prior commitment orders (not the number of times the child has entered residential programs) dictate whether child qualifies for Maximum risk under 985.313(2).
B.R. v. State, 902 So.2d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
The court errs in refusing to allow a child’s parent to testify at disposition.
Williams v. State, 707 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1998)
Delinquency proceedings exist to rehabilitate offenders to prevent them from becoming adult offenders, not to punish them.
V.K.E. v. State, WL 1838948 (Fla. 2006)
Costs pursuant to 938.05 (domestic violence and rape crisis fund) are not assessable in delinquency cases.
J.R. v. State, 923 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
Rule of Sequestration does not authorize excluding a juvenile’s parents from hearings in a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
J.M.S. v. State, 921 So.2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Juvenile has an absolute right to make a closing argument in a bench trial. Don’t be bullied!
M.F. v. State, 920 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
Continuance should have been granted when counsel had not met with juvenile prior to adjudicatory hearing. (Great case!)
D.L.W. v. State, 931 So.2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
One home detention violation is subject to five days; court cannot impose consecutive five day terms for each delinquency case before the court.
A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Conviction for Disturbing a School Function requires intent, i.e., a purposeful interference with school activities. Additionally, court cannot impose a fine on a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding.
T.T. v. State, 2006 WL 1791703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Court must hold indirect criminal contempt hearing within 24 hours.
V.D. v. State, 922 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Fines must have a statutory basis before they can be imposed.
T.A.S. v. State, 892 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Restitution hearing cannot be conducted in the child’s absence without a showing that the absence is voluntary.
S.J.C. v. State, 906 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Child entitled to use reasonable self-defense to protect himself from imminent force that would expectedly result in injury even if force is corporal punishment from parent.
O.R. v. State, 908 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
Trial court must allow juvenile to proffer testimony sought to be elicited on cross-examination of complaining officer.
G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
Child entitled to reasonable time to prepare a defense for OTSC. Additionally, the essential facts constituting the contempt must be stated.
K.D. v. State, 911 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
Child entitled to continuance when comprehensive evaluation hasn’t been completed.
E.H. v. State, 711 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
Trial court must follow procedures set forth in 8.150 to hold a child in indirect criminal contempt of court.
B.M. v. State, 915 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Motion to Suppress may be made during an adjudicatory hearing when the grounds for the motion were not known before the hearing.
T.C. v. State, 852 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
Battering a fellow juvenile in a program or detention facility is not enhanceable to a felony pursuant to 784.082.
Z.B. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 938 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
Absconding probation is more than violating curfew; returning home voluntarily after staying out all night doesn’t qualify as absconding.
And the Hall of Shame case goes to:
C.W. v. State, 793 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
When a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact erroneously admits evidence, the judge is presumed to have disregarded that evidence. Ouch.
