Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

820 So. 2d 1091

Docket No. 4D01-2677.

DT v. State

D.T., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-07-17

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2006

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“credit should be applied from the end of the commitment period as the length of commitment is indeterminate and only limited to the maximum term that could be served by an adult”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 946 So. 2d 1136 - MS v. State

Relies on L.K. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-07-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1092 Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4A juvenile appeals from disposition orders, which committed her to a level 8, high risk residential treatment program on first degree misdemeanor charges. She argues, and the State agrees, that the disposition orders should be corrected to limit the term of her commitment to an indeterminate length of time not to exceed one year, which is the maximum term an adult could serve for the same offense. See § 985.231, Fla. Stat. (2001); L.K. v. State,729 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We agree.

¶5In addition, the juvenile argues, and the State agrees, that she must be given credit for time served in juvenile detention awaiting placement. However, that credit should be applied from the end of the commitment period as the length of the commitment is indeterminate and only limited to the maximum term that could be served by an adult.

¶6The case is reversed and remanded for correction of the disposition orders in accordance with this opinion.

¶7STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

/820/so2d/1091 · .json · Public domain