BJH v. State

B.J.H., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 23, 2005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-09-23

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2007

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“IF A TRIAL JUDGE DOES HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ON JUVENILES IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, THE MANDATORY SURCHARGES SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 938.08 AND 930.085, IS THERE A STATUTORY BASIS TO IMPOSE THESE COSTS AS LIENS AGAINST THE CHILD'S PARENTS?”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including R.R. v. State, 920 So. 2d 146 - RR v. State

Relies on V.K.E. v. State · S.S.M. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-09-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Allison Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3

*946 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

¶4PALMER, J.

¶5We grant appellant's motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion dated May 31, 2005, and issue this revised opinion in its place.

¶6We affirm this case based upon S.S.M. v. State,898 So.2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). As in V.K.E. v. State,902 So.2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as being a matter of great public importance:

WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY IN DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS TO IMPOSE THE MANDATORY SURCHARGES SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 938.08 AND 938.085 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

¶7AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.

¶8ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.