Opinion ID: 1833546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Specific vs. General

Text: The First District also relied on the rule of statutory construction that the specific statute controls over the general statute and found that section 985.233 was more specific than the general provisions of the Predator Act. [9] See J.M., 783 So.2d at 1206. We find the First District's analysis sound. Under that analysis, even if we were to find conflict between the provisions of section 985.233 and the Predator Act (which we do not), we would apply the long-recognized principle of statutory construction that where two statutory provisions are in conflict, the specific statute controls over the general statute. See, e.g., State ex rel. Johnson v. Vizzini, 227 So.2d 205, 207 (Fla.1969). In this instance, we agree with the First District that the specific language of section 985.233(4)(b) stating that adjudications of delinquency are not convictions should control over the general use of the term conviction in other statutes, because to hold otherwise would effectively render the limitation in section 985.233(4)(b) meaningless. Moreover, as the First District noted: Section 985.227(3)(c) specifically authorized trial courts to enter dispositions under section 985.233 for juveniles found to have committed certain offenses; section 985.233 specifically dealt with the courts' powers of disposition of cases involving juveniles tried as adults and found to have violated the law. Accordingly, the provisions in section 985.233(4)(b) excluding adjudications of delinquency from the definition of conviction, takes precedence over the definition of conviction in section 775.21(2)(c), which generally applies to all sexual offenders. J.M., 783 So.2d at 1206. To accept the State's argument, any statute providing that a conviction triggers a criminal or civil penalty would trump the specific language in section 985.233 that states that juvenile delinquency adjudications are not convictions. However, that argument would have us virtually ignore the Legislature's mandate that juvenile dispositions not be treated as criminal convictions and the case law recognizing the distinction. Logically, where a juvenile is involved, the statutes specifically related to juvenile offenders should control over statutes that deal generally with the conduct of all offenders.