From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 26, 1985
467 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-1656.

April 26, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, James P. Calhoun, J.

J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Because there is competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that the child committed a criminal battery, we affirm the order of the trial court which withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed D.B. on community control. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Tsavaris v. State, 414 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1983).

Furthermore, appellant's contention that the trial judge disregarded the notice and hearing requirements of section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes (1983), and thereby improperly assessed an attorney's fee in the amount of $500, would be correct had such an order been rendered. Hankerson v. State, 464 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and cases cited therein. However, our inspection of the record reveals that while the judge orally announced his intention to enter such an order, he never did so. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g), 9.140(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.


Summaries of

D.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 26, 1985
467 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

D.B. v. State

Case Details

Full title:D.B., A CHILD, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 26, 1985

Citations

467 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. State

Accordingly, I would remand the cause for the trial court to render a definitive ruling on the 3.850 motion.…