Summary
recognizing that a correction was needed in a disposition order that was ambiguous regarding the maximum allowable sentence for misdemeanor battery, and that in accordance with M.S. the term of the sentence should be set out specifically to avoid confusion
Summary of this case from R.P. v. StateOpinion
No. 95-2515.
August 14, 1996.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Barbara Bridge, Judge; L.T. Case No. CJ 93-07372 JM and CJ 94-07545 JM.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee; and Edward Giles, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm the Level 2 commitment of appellant under § 39.052 (3)(e)3, Florida Statutes. The trial court stated for the record its reasons for disregarding the recommendations of the Department of Juvenile Justice and those reasons were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
There is a correction needed, however, in the Disposition Order. The order is ambiguous regarding the maximum allowable sentence for misdemeanor battery committed by a juvenile and is therefore inconsistent with our recent ruling in M.S. v. State, 675 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In M.S. we held that for the sake of clarity, the term of the sentence should be specifically stated to avoid confusion. We remand the order to specifically state that the maximum sentence for appellant's misdemeanor battery charge is limited to one year. R.B. v. State, 633 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); § 39.054 (4), Florida Statutes (1993).
STEVENSON, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.