State v. M.K.
786 So. 2d 24 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state's right to appeal an order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is strictly limited by statute and court rule; an appeal is not permitted unless a specific statute or rule explicitly authorizes it for the particular type of order at issue.
Facts:
- M.K., a juvenile, entered pleas of nolo contendere in five delinquency cases.
- A court ordered M.K., then seventeen years old, to serve a term of community control and pay specified amounts of restitution to each of his victims.
- The disposition order contained an optional provision for the court to retain jurisdiction for enforcing restitution beyond the child’s nineteenth birthday, but the trial judge did not select this option.
- More than a year and a half later, M.K. turned nineteen.
- After M.K. turned nineteen, a portion of the court-ordered restitution remained unpaid.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a request in the juvenile trial court to impose restitution liens for the amounts M.K. still owed his victims.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the state's request, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the restitution order after M.K.'s nineteenth birthday.
- The state (appellant) appealed the trial court's order denying the restitution liens to the District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal, on its own initiative, ordered the state to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the state from a trial court's order denying a request to impose restitution liens in a juvenile delinquency proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Padovano, J.
No. An appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the state’s right to appeal is purely statutory, and neither the controlling statute for juvenile proceedings (Chapter 985) nor the relevant court rule (Rule 9.145) authorizes the state to appeal from an order denying restitution in a juvenile delinquency case. While the Florida Constitution guarantees a citizen the right to appeal a final order, the state is afforded no such right. The state can only appeal if a statute explicitly grants it that power. The legislature has authorized the state to appeal restitution orders in adult criminal cases under Chapter 924, but it has not enacted a corresponding provision for juvenile delinquency cases under Chapter 985. This legislative distinction is determinative, and the court cannot create a right to appeal where none exists.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional boundaries governing the state's right to appeal in juvenile matters, highlighting that the juvenile justice system is distinct from the adult criminal system. It clarifies that rights and procedures applicable in adult cases cannot be assumed to apply to juvenile proceedings. The ruling places the onus on the legislature to amend the relevant statutes if it intends for the state to have recourse against adverse restitution rulings in juvenile court. Until such an amendment, this decision effectively closes the door on state appeals of this nature, potentially impacting the finality of restitution orders and the ability of victims to collect.
Unlock the full brief for State v. M.K.