Court Opinion

ID: 9408344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 15:06:28.006045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.370536
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                               M.T., a child,
                                Petitioner,

                                     v.

             DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE and
                     MAJOR DUVIEL ROSELLO,
      as Superintendent of the Broward Juvenile Detention Center,
                             Respondents.

                             Nos. 4D23-1351

                              [July 12, 2023]

   Petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Elijah H. Williams, Judge; L.T. Case No. 23-560DL.

  Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil
Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant
Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

  Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

GERBER, J.

   The juvenile in a delinquency proceeding petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus seeking release from a second 21-day secure detention. The
juvenile contends his initial 21-day secure detention had expired before
the circuit court ordered the second 21-day secure detention, thus
depriving the circuit court of the authority to extend the secure detention.

   We disagree and deny the petition. Section 985.26(2)(b), Florida
Statutes (2022), provides trial courts with broad discretion to extend
secure detention of juveniles charged with certain serious offenses based
on the totality of the circumstances, including the preservation of public
safety. Because the juvenile here had a history of absconding and only
being found when he was arrested on new charges, section 985.26(2)(b)
did not preclude the circuit court from adding a second 21-day secure
detention.
                           Procedural History

   On March 20, 2023, the juvenile was arrested for the following charges
in Broward County: (1) aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer
with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony; (2) fleeing or attempting to
elude a law enforcement officer, a third-degree felony; and (3) grand theft
auto, a third-degree felony.

   According to the arrest affidavit, the juvenile was driving a stolen
vehicle. When a police officer in a marked vehicle with lights activated
pulled in front of the juvenile to try to stop him, the juvenile accelerated
and rammed the officer’s vehicle. The juvenile then drove away at over
ninety miles per hour until crashing and fleeing on foot. Police caught the
juvenile a short distance away.

   The circuit court entered an order directing that the juvenile be held in
secure detention for 21 days. The juvenile was released on April 9, 2023.

    On May 19, 2023, the state filed a motion to extend the juvenile’s secure
detention pursuant to section 985.26(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2022). The
motion explained that, on April 12, 2023, just three days after the
juvenile’s release from secure detention, he was arrested in Miami-Dade
County in two separate cases for multiple counts of grand theft auto,
burglary, and criminal mischief. He was released and failed to appear for
an April 18, 2023 court date. Police picked him up the following day and
he was released again. A week later, on April 26, 2023, the juvenile was
arrested for multiple counts of grand theft auto, burglary, and resisting an
officer without violence in five additional cases in Miami-Dade County.

   The state’s motion to extend detention noted that, at the time of the
juvenile’s arrest in the Broward County case in March 2023, he was on
supervised release for burglary and grand theft of a firearm in a 2022
Miami-Dade case, and he also had open charges for burglary and grand
theft in another 2022 Miami-Dade case. The state’s motion further noted,
in addition to the juvenile having an extensive criminal history, he also
had been a chronic runaway with an open missing person/dependency
case.

   The juvenile filed an objection to the state’s motion. He argued, among
other things, that the state was required to have requested to extend his
secure detention before he was released from his initial 21-day period of
secure detention on April 9, 2023.

                                     2
    At a hearing on the motion, the state’s witness presented the following
evidence. The juvenile ran away in September 2022. In October 2022, the
juvenile was arrested in South Carolina and returned to Florida on a
pickup order. After the juvenile’s return to Florida, he had three separate
placements. The juvenile absconded from all three placements. The
juvenile was found when he was arrested on new charges. After the
juvenile’s arrest in this case, he was placed in secure detention. In April
2023, when he was released from secure detention and placed in care, he
absconded again. The juvenile was found when he was arrested again.
On this last arrest, the juvenile was with an adult co-defendant who had
a firearm.

   The circuit court entered an order granting the state’s motion and
extending the juvenile’s secure detention for an additional 21 days. The
circuit court concluded that, given the juvenile’s history, it could not safely
release the juvenile from secure detention.

                                This Petition

   This petition followed. The juvenile argues the circuit court could not
extend his initial 21-day secure detention because that term expired on
April 9, 2023, upon which he had to be released immediately.

   We disagree with the juvenile’s argument. The juvenile was initially
held in a 21-day secure detention as provided in section 985.26(2)(a)2.,
Florida Statutes (2022):

      Except as provided in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c), a child
      may not be held in secure detention care under a special
      detention order for more than 21 days unless an adjudicatory
      hearing for the case has been commenced in good faith by the
      court.

§ 985.26(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2022).

  The circuit court then detained the juvenile for an additional 21 days
pursuant to section 985.26(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), which provides:

      Upon good cause being shown that the nature of the charge
      requires additional time for the prosecution or defense of the
      case or that the totality of the circumstances, including the
      preservation of public safety, warrants an extension, the court
      may extend the length of secure detention care for up to an
      additional 21 days if the child is charged with an offense

                                       3
      which, if committed by an adult, would be a capital felony, a
      life felony, a felony of the first degree or the second degree, or
      a felony of the third degree involving violence against any
      individual. The court may continue to extend the period of
      secure detention care in increments of up to 21 days each by
      conducting a hearing before the expiration of the current
      period to determine the need for continued secure detention
      of the child. At the hearing, the court must make the required
      findings in writing to extend the period of secure detention. If
      the court extends the time period for secure detention care, it
      shall ensure an adjudicatory hearing for the case commences
      as soon as is reasonably possible considering the totality of
      the circumstances. The court shall prioritize the efficient
      disposition of cases in which the child has served 60 or more
      days in secure detention care.

§ 985.26(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022).

   Importantly, the Legislature amended section 985.26(2)(b) in 2022 to
give circuit courts broad discretion to securely detain juveniles charged
with the enumerated serious offenses, particularly where necessary to
protect public safety. Ch. 2022-181, § 2, Laws of Fla.

   Section 985.26(2)(b)’s pre-2022 version provided:

      Upon good cause being shown that the nature of the charge
      requires additional time for the prosecution or defense of the
      case, the court may extend the length of detention for an
      additional 9 days if the child is charged with an offense that
      would be, if committed by an adult, a capital felony, a life
      felony, a felony of the first degree, or a felony of the second
      degree involving violence against any individual.

§ 985.26(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021).

    Thus, section 985.26(2)(b), as amended in 2022, allows circuit courts
to extend secure detention for juveniles charged with the enumerated
offenses based on the “totality of the circumstances, including the
preservation of public safety.” § 985.26(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022).

   Here, the juvenile is charged with aggravated battery on a law
enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony which
qualifies for extended detention under the now-amended section
985.26(2)(b)’s first clause. Nothing in that clause required the circuit court

                                      4
to enter an order extending the juvenile’s secure detention before the initial
21-day secure detention period had expired. By its plain terms, section
985.26(2)(b) requires “a hearing before the expiration of the current period
to determine the need for continued secure detention of the child” only for
subsequent extensions, i.e., after the circuit court has once extended
secure detention under the preceding clause. Id.

   Section 985.26(2)(b)’s plain and unambiguous language controls. See
Montgomery v. State, 897 So. 2d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 2005) (“When the
language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and
definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory
interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and
obvious meaning.”) (citation omitted).

   Based on the foregoing, the circuit court acted within its statutory
discretion to extend the juvenile’s 21-day secure detention to preserve
public safety, prevent the juvenile from absconding again, and protect the
juvenile from being harmed himself.

   Petition denied.

LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

                            *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      5