Title: PWG v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

702 So. 2d 488 (1997)
P.W.G., a child, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 89446.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 11, 1997.
*489 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Intake Division, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals; and Stephen R. White, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review P.W.G. v. State, 682 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in In re D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve P.W.G.
Petitioner pled guilty to making a destructive device[1] by mixing "The Works" toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil in a plastic bottle. He admitted throwing it under the victim's trailer where it exploded. The trial court considered the predisposition report prepared by the Department of Juvenile Justice, as required by section 39.052, Florida Statutes (1995):
Id. (emphasis added).
Petitioner was fifteen years old at the time of the offense and the following summarizes his predisposition report:
P.W.G., 682 So. 2d  at 1204-05 (brackets in original). The trial court adjudicated petitioner delinquent and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the recommended placement in the Manatee Adolescent Treatment Service.
On appeal, petitioner claimed it was error for the trial court to recommend placement in such a facility because he was not charged with a sexual offense and consideration of prior, uncharged, criminal conduct violated his right to substantive due process of law guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order and held that "delinquency dispositions are not analogous to criminal sentencings" and "the recommended placement does not offend the due process clause of either the state or the federal constitution." P.W.G., 682 So. 2d  at 1207, 1209. The district court acknowledged that its holding created conflict with In re D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), wherein the Fourth District held that substantive due process prohibits the judge from considering a juvenile's prior arrest record in a juvenile sentencing proceeding. However, the P.W.G. court concluded that "the holding in D.D. resulted from a failure to recognize the fundamental differences between the juvenile delinquency and the adult criminal systems." P.W.G., 682 So. 2d  at 1208.
Petitioner maintains that the district court's holding is incorrect. We disagree. The district court reasoned thusly:
(Footnotes [and citations] omitted). In In the Interest of C.J.W., 377 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla.1979), the court rejected an argument made by the appellant child, noting that the argument failed to appreciate "the differences between adults and children and the differences between the objectives of the criminal and juvenile justice systems." The court said:
P.W.G., 682 So. 2d  at 1207-08 (citations omitted).
We agree with the analysis and conclusion of the district court. Accordingly, we approve the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We disapprove In re D.D., 564 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), to the extent it conflicts with our decision herein.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., OVERTON, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in result only.
[1]  § 790.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1995) (third-degree felony if committed by an adult).