Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
C.R.T., A CHILD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
C.R.T. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his two concurrent thirty-day sentences to secure detention for contempt of court violate section 985.037(2), Florida Statutes (2017). We grant the petition.
On March 17, 2017, the juvenile court held Petitioner in direct contempt of court in both his pending cases, (16-CJ-000132-A-OR and 15-CJ-005460-A-OR), for “yelling and cussing at the court and his mother.” In each case, he was sentenced to concurrent thirty-day sentences in secure detention.
On March 29, 2017, Petitioner admitted to violating his probation in both cases. The court revoked and terminated the probationary terms and sentenced him to new terms. The court set aside the release order and ordered that Petitioner remain detained until the thirty-day contempt sentences were completed. This was error.
“A delinquent child who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed in a secure detention facility not to exceed 5 days for a first offense and not to exceed 15 days for a second or subsequent offense.” § 985.037(2), Fla. Stat. “There is no ambiguity on the face of the statute; trial courts are explicitly authorized to sentence a juvenile to up to five days in secure detention for a first act of contempt, and up to fifteen days in secure detention for each additional act of contempt.” J.M. v. Gargett, 101 So. 3d 352, 356 (Fla. 2012). Petitioner's maximum possible sentence in the case with the previous contempt (16-CJ-000132-A-OR) was fifteen days. Petitioner's maximum possible sentence in the case without a previous contempt (15-CJ-005460-A-OR) was five days. Accordingly, both thirty-day sentences are illegal and Petitioner, who has been held for seventeen days, is entitled to immediate release.
PETITION GRANTED.
PER CURIAM.
ORFINGER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D17-0962
Decided: April 04, 2017
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)