Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

J.J.A., a Child v. State of Florida

Docket 5D2025-1759

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
Filed
Jurisdiction
Florida
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type
Opinion
Docket
5D2025-1759

Appeal from the circuit court's denial of a suppression motion and review of a juvenile disposition order adjudicating delinquency

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of J.J.A.’s motion to suppress but reversed the juvenile disposition order adjudicating him delinquent for possession of a firearm by a minor. The appellate court found the disposition order failed to state the statutory maximum penalty and did not award or specify predisposition credit for time served, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2). Because the commitment at issue is effectively determinate (it will end before the department’s authority expires), the court ordered the trial court to enter a corrected disposition specifying the maximum penalty and the amount of credit.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the juvenile disposition order properly specified the maximum statutory penalty for the offense.
  • Whether the disposition order correctly awarded and specified predisposition credit for time served in secure detention.
  • Whether the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion should be reversed (the court affirmed this denial).

Court's Reasoning

Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2) requires a disposition order to state the maximum penalty and the amount of time served before disposition. Because a juvenile commitment that must end before the department's authority expires is treated as determinate, the juvenile is entitled to predisposition credit. The disposition here neither specified the maximum statutory sentence nor credited time served, so the court found reversible error and remanded for a corrected order, while affirming the suppression ruling.

Authorities Cited

  • Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2)
  • Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2)
  • J.I.S. v. State930 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)

Parties

Appellant
J.J.A., a Child
Appellee
State of Florida
Judge
William Collins Cooper
Attorney
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender
Attorney
Judson Searcy, Assistant Public Defender
Attorney
James Uthmeier, Attorney General
Attorney
Darcy Townsend, Assistant Attorney General

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-05-01

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Trial court to enter corrected disposition

    The trial court must issue a new disposition order specifying the maximum statutory penalty for the offense and the amount of predisposition credit for time served, consistent with this opinion.

  2. 2

    Defense should review corrected order

    Counsel for the juvenile should verify the corrected order accurately reflects the maximum penalty and the correct amount of predisposition credit and move to correct any errors promptly.

  3. 3

    Consider further appellate review if necessary

    Either party may evaluate whether to file timely post-opinion motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure or seek discretionary review if there are grounds to challenge the appellate ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but reversed the juvenile disposition because the order failed to state the maximum penalty and did not give or state predisposition credit for time served.
Who is affected by this decision?
J.J.A. is directly affected because his disposition order must be corrected; the decision also instructs trial courts on properly drafting juvenile disposition orders.
What happens next?
The trial court must enter a corrected disposition order that specifies the statutory maximum penalty and the amount of predisposition credit for time served.
Can this decision be appealed further?
A party may seek further review under Florida appellate rules (for example, discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court) if authorized and timely; the opinion notes it is not final until resolution of any timely authorized motions.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D2025-1759
                   LT Case No. 16-2024-CJ-1143-A
                   _____________________________

J.J.A., a Child,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                   _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
William Collins Cooper, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Judson Searcy, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

                            May 1, 2026


KILBANE, J.

     J.J.A., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion
to suppress and a disposition order adjudicating him delinquent.
We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress without comment,
but we reverse the disposition order and remand with instructions
to enter a corrected order in accordance with this opinion.
                               Facts

     J.J.A. pled nolo contendere to, and the trial court adjudicated
him delinquent of, possession of a firearm by a minor, a first-
degree misdemeanor. See § 790.22(3), (5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2025). In
the disposition order, the court committed J.J.A. for placement in
a moderate-risk residential commitment program “for an
indeterminate period, but no longer than the child’s 21st birthday
or the maximum term of imprisonment an adult may serve for each
count listed above, whichever comes first.”

     During the pendency of this appeal, J.J.A. timely served a
motion to correct the disposition order under Florida Rule of
Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2), arguing the order failed to specify
the maximum penalty1 or to account for predisposition credit as
required under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2).2
Due to the trial court’s failure to timely rule on the motion, we
treat the motion as denied. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (2)(B)
(2025); J.H. v. State, 344 So. 3d 616, 619 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
(“Under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(1)(B), should
a trial court fail to respond to a motion to correct a disposition
order within thirty days of entry, the motion is deemed denied.”).
The State concedes that the disposition order should reflect the
maximum penalty and predisposition credit.

                             Analysis

     We review a motion to correct a disposition order filed under
rule 8.135(b)(2)—the “juvenile version” of Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.800(b)—de novo. See N.J.P. v. State, 331 So. 3d 157,
158 & 158 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); see also E.S.B. v. State, 822 So.


    1.    For adult offenders, a first-degree misdemeanor is
punishable by “a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1
year.” § 775.082(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2025).

     2. J.J.A. preserved this argument by filing the rule 8.135(b)(2)
motion. See E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579, 580 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA
2002) (“Appellant’s utilization of rule 8.135(b)(2) preserved this
issue for appellate review.”).


                                  2
2d 579, 580 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Florida Rule of Juvenile
Procedure 8.135(b)(2) was recently amended to provide the same
procedural safeguards as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(b)(2).”); J.H., 344 So. 3d at 621 (“A trial court’s ruling, or
failure to rule, on a motion to correct a sentencing error presents a
purely legal issue which an appellate court reviews de novo.”).

     Florida law requires a disposition order to “specify[] the. . .
maximum penalty defined by statute and . . . the amount of time
served in secure detention before disposition.” Fla. R. Juv. P.
8.115(d)(2) (emphasis added); see N.J.P., 331 So. 3d at 159 (“[I]t is
not enough for a disposition order to merely reference the
maximum statutory sentence for an offense without specifying
what the maximum sentence actually is.” (quoting A.M.R. v. State,
134 So. 3d 502, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014))). Further, a trial court is
required to grant predisposition credit for time served “on a
‘determinate’ commitment for an offense such as a misdemeanor
that will necessarily conclude before the juvenile reaches the age
at which DJJ’s authority ends.” J.I.S v. State, 930 So. 2d 587, 590
(Fla. 2006).3

    Here, the disposition order failed to specify the maximum
penalty for the offense and J.J.A.’s predisposition credit for time
served. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(d)(2). And because J.J.A.’s


     3. All juvenile commitments are technically “indeterminate.”
See § 985.455(3), Fla. Stat. (2025) (“Any commitment of a
delinquent child to the department must be for an indeterminate
period of time, which may include periods of temporary release;
however, the period of time may not exceed the maximum term of
imprisonment that an adult may serve for the same offense.”). But
because the time in commitment cannot exceed the maximum
adult punishment, “[c]ourts sometimes refer to commitments
circumscribed by the maximum adult punishment as
‘determinate.’” J.I.S., 930 So. 2d at 593. Whether a juvenile is
entitled to predisposition credit depends on this distinction. See
In re Amends. to the Fla. R. Juv. P., 26 So. 3d 552, 557 (Fla. 2009)
(“[E]ntitlement to credit for time served in secure detention prior
to commitment is dependent upon whether the commitment is
determinate or indeterminate.”).


                                 3
commitment will “necessarily conclude” before he “reaches the age
at which DJJ’s authority ends,” it constitutes a determinate
commitment. J.I.S., 930 So. 2d at 590. Accordingly, the court was
required to grant J.J.A. predisposition credit for time served. Id.

                           Conclusion

     The trial court reversibly erred in failing to specify the
maximum penalty, and failing to grant and specify predisposition
credit. Thus, we reverse the disposition order and remand for the
trial court to enter a corrected disposition order in accordance with
this opinion.

     AFFIRM in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with
instructions.

WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.




                                 4
          _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
           _____________________________




                       5