The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

J.I.S. v. State of Florida

WE WILL CALL THE NEXT CASE OF JIS VERSUS FLORIDA. THE PARTIES ARE READY.MR. HEAD RICK . ARE YOU OKAY? ALL RI GHT . WE HAVE GOT THE FYI ON OUR MORNING INFORMATION HERE, SO IF YOU NEED ANY ASSISTANCE , LET US KNOW. YOU MAY PRO CEED .

GOOD MORNING, HONO RABLE CHIEF JUSTICE PAR IENTE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES. I AM THE JUVE NILE DIVISION CHIEF OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRC UIT. WE ARE HERE TO DAY TO ESTABLISH THAT CHILD REN SHOULDN'T BE TR EATED AS L ESS THAN AD ULTS BY FLORIDA'SCOURT S YSTEM .

COULD YOU PULL THE MIKE UP SOME OR SOM ETHING. I AM HAVING PROBLEMS HERE.

MAYBE I S HOULD STAND A LITTLE CLOS ER, ALSO. MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP. THANK YOU FOR LE TTING M E KNOW THAT, JUSTICE QUI NCE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW, ARE YOU ASKING FOR CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR WHAT WAS IN T HEEND OF MR . BRINKMEYER 'S BRIEF , AND THAT , I N JUDGE BATTEN'S CONCURRENCE , SAYING THAT IT WOULD BENEFIT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND EVERYONE E LSE , IF THERE COULD JUST BE PLACED ON THE COM MITMENT ORDER , THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT THE PERSON WAS INSECURE DETENTION.

WELL, OUR FIRST POS ITION , CHIEF JUSTICE PARIE NTE, WE ARE ASKING FOR CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , BECAUSE FRANKLYUNDER THE STATU TORY SCH EME IN FLORIDA , THERE IS A STATUTE THAT BASICA LLY SAYS FOR STARTERS , THE JUVE NILES CANNOT SERVE ANY LO NGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN ADULT S IF THEY ARE SIMILARLY --

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT I S TRUE IF THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR, ABOUT ARE B UTWHAT WOULD BE THE TIME TH ATHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO SERVE IF HE WERE AN ADUL T?

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE , HE DID HAVE A SECOND-DEGREE FELONY. BATTERY. IT COULD BE 15 YE ARS, SO IN HIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT, WOULDN'T MA TTER. HOWEVER, EVEN HAVING THE CREDFOYT TIME SERVED FOR HIS CASE WOULD BE HELP FUL -- CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED FOR HIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL BECAUSE FOR TREATMENT PURPOSES, I T WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR THE FACILITY TO KNOW HOW LONG HEWAS THERE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HE HAD 1 07DAYS THAT HE WAS INSEC URE DETENTION.I AM GOING TO ASK THE S TATEABOUT THAT. THAT SEEMS OF G REAT CONC ERN THAT JUVENILES ARE REMA INING INSECURE DETE NTION AND NOT BEING TREATED.

I MIGHT AD D THAT IS NOT A RARITY. I HAVE SEEN THAT HAP PEN, ALSO, WITH OTHER PEO PLE I TREAT DAY-TO-D AY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT , WHEN HE G ETCLOSE TO AGE 22, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BE, EVEN I F HE WAS BEING TREATED SUCCESSFULLY, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEASED 107 DAYS BEFORE HIS 2 2d BIRTHDAY? BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN WE USUALLY GET CREDIT FOR TIM E SERVED. THAT IS WHAT IT IS AND THAT IS WHY THESE ARE N'T ANALOGOUS. JUVENILE CASES ARE NOT ANALOGOUS TO ADULT CASES , BECAUSE YOU YOU ARE REALLY NOT ASKING , IF I AM NOW UNDERSTANDING IT, YOU ARE SAYING IN CASES WHERE , IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE CREDIT , THEY WOULD BE SERVING MORE THAN THE ADULT TIME, YOU MUST GIVE THEM CREDIT. OTHERWISE, YOU UNDERS TANDTHAT THEY SHOULD BE TREATED UNTIL THEY ARE REL EASED , EITHER AT 18 OR UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES , 2 1 O R 22 , IS THAT CORRECT?

I WOULD ADD THAT EVEN IT WOULD APPLY TO THE SITUATIONOF THIRD-DEGREE FELONIES.I HAVE SEEN SOME CHILDRE N THAT ARE POTENTIALLY INSTITUTIONALIZED.THEY HAVE GOTTEN USED TO BEING IN A FAC ILITY. THEY HAVE HAD PROB LEMS AT FACILITIES. THEY POTENTIALLY B UMP AGAINST THAT FIVE-YEAR MARK. I AG REE ON THE 15th YEAR , UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS COMMITTED SOMETHING , I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY HAPPEN ON A 15-YEAR-OLD.

I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER TO THE CHIEF'S QUESTION ABOUT , UNDER YOUR THEORY , WHY YOU WOULDN'T TAKE OFF THE TIME , THEN, BEFORE AGE 22. IN OTHER WO RDS IT IS AT 100 AND WHATEVER DAYS, THEN I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THE CONSISTENCY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. I TH OUGHT YOUR ARGUMENT WAS, INDEED , WOULD REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THAT. THAT IS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO G IVE CREDIT FOR THIS TIME , SINCE THE MAXIMUM IS TO AGE 22 , BUT YOU HAVE TO RED UCE THAT , BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, SO THAT WE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN, FOR INSTANCE , THE MISDEMEANOR S , WHERE THAT I S SORT OF E ASY IN MOST INSTANCES . SO HELP US WITH WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE , AS FAR AS WHAT CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN AND APPLY IT AS A MATTER OF FACT, TO THIS SE NTENCE.

WELL, I WILL BE HAP PY , JUSTICE ANSTEAD. I WILL ANALOGIZE THE SITUATION WHERE IN ESSENCE YOU GIVE CREDIT FOR TIM E SERVED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING LIFE SENTEN CES IN ESSENCE. WE KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO B E THERE.WE KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE THERE ALL THAT TIME. THEY ARE GOING TO DIE THERE , YET WE ST ILL , THE LOWER COURTS STILL GIVE CREDFOYT TIME SERVED FOR THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SENTENCE IS REDUCED PARTICULARLY. IT JUST ME ANS IT IS THERE .

BUT WHAT IS THE REAL PURPOSE THEN? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE YOU SEE AS BEING SERVED BY GIVING SOMEONE CREDF OYT TIME SERVED , AND THEY , REALLY , IT IS NOT GOING TO REDUCE T HEIRSENTENCE ANY.

WELL, THE P U RPOSE , I SEE IT AS SEVERAL FOLD. NUMBER ON E, IN THE C ASE WHERE IT AC TUALLY WOULD CAUSE THEM TO BUMP AGAINST THE STATUTORY MAXI MUM , BE IT A MISDEMEANOR OR IN THE CASE OF A THIRD- DEGREE FELONY. THAT WOULD BE NECESS ARY , JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T EXCEED THE ADULT EQUIVALENT SENTENCE, BUT EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION BEING T HECASE, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, I THINK, FOR THE FACILITY WHERE THE JUVENILE GOES, TO WHATEVER COMMITMENT FACILITY IT WAS, WHATEVER LEVEL IT WAS, TO KNOW HOW LONG THAT CHILD ACT UALLY HAS BEEN INSECURE DETENTION ELSEWHERE, FOR WHATEVER - -

SO IN THIS CASE , IT WOULD , REALLY, SERVE NO PRACTI CAL EFFECT, JUST AUTHORITIES WOULD THEN KNOW THAT HE, IN FACT, S PENT 107 DAYS INSECURE DETENTION. I MEAN, IT WOULD NOT CH ANGE THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HE IS GOING TO ACTUALLY BE SERVING ING , COR RECT? -- SERVING, CORR ECT?

WELL, THAT IS HARD TO SAY , JUSTICE QUINCE. I AM NOT TR YING TO B E ABSTRACT ABOUT IT.IT MIGHT. I HAVE SEEN PLENTY OF TIMES WHERE JUDG ES HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT A CHILD HAS BEEN INSECURE DEFINANCIAL TE NSION -- DETENTION FOR "REQUEST X" -- FOR "X" LENGTH OF TIME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE NOT HERE, AS WE ARE OFTEN REMINDED, JUST AS A POLICY-MAKING BO DY. WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE, FIRST OF ALL WHETHER ANYTHING CONSTITUTIONAL HAS BEEN VIOLATED BUT THEN OTHERWISE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE, WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME IS , AND WHAT IS THE FIRST DISTRICT'S OPINION SAID THAT THE AUTHORIZATION FOR GIVING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , IS LEGISLATIVE IN ORI GIN , BUT THAT NO SUCH PROVISION EXISTS FOR THE, IN CHAPTER 985 , SO TELL US , OTHER THAN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE UP AGAINST THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM , AND THEREFORE IT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER LEGISLATIVE GOALS, THAT THEY NOT BE SERVING MORE THAN AN ADULT. WHAT IS THE B ASIS FOR U S SAYING IT MIG HT BE NICE FOR JUDGES TO NOTE I T , BUT WE CAN'T COM PEL THAT .

WELL, I THINK THE PROB LEM IS, R IGHT NOW WE HAVE CHILDREN BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND DISPARATE LY IN THE STATE. R IGHT NOW THE PO LICY OF THE DECISION IN THE FIRST DISTRICT, WH ICH I MIGHT ADD IS IN CONF LICT WITH SOME OF OTHER OTHER DECIS IONS ON POLICY, BUT IT IS THE POLICY NOW IN THE FIRST DISTRI CT AS A RESULT OF THIS LEGAL OPINION THAT NO CREDIT F ORTIME SERVED IS BASI CALLY BEGIN , PERIOD , FOR CASES . VIRTUALLY YOU TAKE THE OTHER DISTRICT COURTS' APPEA L IN THE SECOND AND FO URTH AND THE THE VERY LE AST THEY HAVE BEEN GIVING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED, SO I T IS THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE CONSISTENCY IN THE STATE FOR WHAT WE ARE DOING W ITH REGARDS TO CREDIT FOR T IME SERVED. YES , JUSTICE CANTERO.

I GUESS THE QU ESTION IS , FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, FOR ADULTS WE HAVE A STATUTORY BASIS FOR GIVING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED. FOR JUVENILES, WHAT IS THE STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR GIVING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED? THERE IS NO , APPARE NTLY I HAVEN'T SEEN A STATUTE THAT DICTATES IT.

THERE IS NOT A SPEC IFIC STATUTE FOR JUVENILE S ON THAT. I WOULD S AY, GOING BACK TOTHE STATUTE, I INDI CATED ABOUT THE STATUTORY MAX IMUM. I THINK YOU HAVE T O INFER FROM THAT , THAT YOU HAVE TO BE KEEPING TR AC K OF THAT SOMEWHERE, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME ONE IN THE CASE OF YOUR MISS DHEENORS OR POSSIBLY YOUR -- MISDEMEA NOR S OR POSSIBLY YOUR THIRD-DEGREE FELONIES , SERVING MORE THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM.

BUT THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY WHEN YOU ARE UP AGAINST THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY STATUTORY PROVISION.

RIGHT, BUT AGAIN GOING BACK TO THE FACT , J USTICE CANTERO , THAT THE SYSTEM IS , ALSO HAS , EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BECOME MORE PUNITIVE A S TIME GOES ON, THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT DOES H AVE SOME REHABILITATIVE COMPONENTS STILL IN IT. I THINK THOSE FOL KS IN THOSE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AS A MATTER OF C OURSE , NEED TO BE BEING TOLD H OW LONG THOSE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY INSECURE DETENTION, SO THEY CAN FASHION WHATEVER TREATMENT PLAN THEY HAVE FOR THAT PERSON.

CHIEF JUSTICE: CAN'T THEY, I MEAN AGA IN, NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING, AND LISTEN, FIRST OF ALL I APPLAUD YOU FOR ADVO CATING FOR JUVENILES , AND I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT MA NY AT THIS COURT FE EL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND WHAT IS WRONG AND WHAT IS RI GHT, ABOUT THE QUESTION , MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW HOW LONG TREATMENT PEOPLE KNOW HOW LONG SOMEONE HAS SERVED INSECURE DETENSION , SEE MS LIKE A N ADMINISTRATIVE IS SUE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND N OTSOMETHING THAT THIS COURT CAN SAY IN DICTA , IT WOULD BE NICE TO DO THIS. I DON'T SEE H OW WE CAN MANDATE THAT IT BE DONE, UNLESS IT IS A SITUATION WHERE IT IS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT SOMEONEDOES NOT SERVE MORE THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM .

WELL, IN THE ADULT SYSTEM , OBVIOUSLY, THE JUDGES , INSTEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AG ENCY, i. e. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , IS THE , A RE THE FOLKS.THEY ARE CHAR GED WITH COMINGUP WITH CREDIT FOR THAT TIME SERVED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF Y OUDON'T KNOW , HOW MANY TIMES CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED GETS SCREWED UP BY THE TR IAL JUDGE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HOLD THAT INFORMATION. AT LEAST HERE, T HEDEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IS THE SAME EN TITY , YOU KNOW , THAT KEE PS TRACK OF TIME, SO HOPEFU LLY THEY CAN, IT IS AN E ASIER ADMINISTRATIVE JOB, BUT IT IS NOT EAS Y FOR JUDGES TO DO THIS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE GOT TO RELY ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE OR, IN THE ADULT SYSTEM, ON THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , THE COUNTY JAIL AND EVERYONE ELSE.

WELL , I GUESS IT IS, WHAT IT IS, I THINK IT IS FRA NKLY MORE THAN JUST YOU ARE SAYING IN DICTA. I THIN G YOU KNOW FORTUNATELYBECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN INTO STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GO VERNOR , I THINK WE ARE HAVING TO BE FORCED TO , INES EPPS , FROM THE -- FORCED TO, IN ESSENCE , FROM THE PRO VISION IN 1985 THAT SAYS A CHILD CAN'T SERVE ANY LONGER THAN AN ADULT, I THINK YOU ARE HAVING TO IN ES SENCE TO WRITE IT IN AND SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS GOT TO BE DONE.

DON'T WE KIND OF HAVE THE CART BEFORE THE HO RSE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TA LKING ABOUT A CASE HERE WHERE A CHILD IN A HABE AS OR OTHER TYPE OF ACTION , HAS ACTUALLY BEEN REQUIRED T O SERVE GREATER THAN AN ADULT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE . IS THAT THE CASE BEFORE US?

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT IS CORRECT , JUSTICE BELL, DUE TO THE N ATURE O F THE PARTICULAR CR IME THIS PERSON HAS.

SO, I MEAN , SO THIS IS NOT THE T YPE OF CASE WHERE THAT WRONG HAS OCCU RRED. SO AS JUSTICE PAR IENTE SA ID , IT IS STILL AN ISSUE FOR T HEDEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE , THE EXECUTIVE BRAN CH OR THE LEGISLATIVE BR ANCH TO ANS WER THE QUESTION.

I GUESS IT COULD BE LEFT THERE, BUT THE REAL PROBLEMIS THAT WE HAVE GOT THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN ESSENCE , SAY ING TO THE DEPARTMENT , THAT Y OUSHOULDN'T BE GIVING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , SO WE HAVE GOT THIS PROBLEM , AND I HAVE HAD OTHER JUDGES SAY TO ME, YOU KNOW, THE TIME T HEPERSON HAS BEEN IN DETENTION SERVED, DOE SN'T COUNT TOWARD WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY DOING LATER ON .

CHIEF JUSTICE: DO YOU THINK THE LAW NEED S TO BE CLARIFIED THAT , IT IS , I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL I DON'TKNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD , THAT A JUDGE WOULD BE WRONG IF IT WAS NOTED O N A , O N THE DISPOSITION ORDER , BUT THE LAST PART OF THE R E PLY B R IEF SAYS MA KING A FI NDING WOULD PROVE US EFUL IN SOME CASES AND SHOULD NOT PROFAN ITY I THERAPEUTIC. THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM WOULD NOT R UN A FOUL OF THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION AND MAY BENEFIT PETIT IONER AND MIGHT BE AN USEFUL TOOL IN HELPING THE D JJ RELEASE DATE. THAT SOUNDS TO ME L IKE VERY NICE POLICY LANGUAGE , AND MAYBE EVEN IT COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A RU LE OF JUVENILE PRO CEDURE , BECAUSE NOTING THE TIME WOULD NOT BE , DOESN'T SEEM LIKE , IF ANYTHING, SUBSTANTIVE , IF WE ARE NOT MAND ATING THAT THE RELEASE BE CHA NGED BY THE 110 DAYS IN THIS CASE, BUT, AGAIN , I AM STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH SAYING T HIS CASE, BECAUSE WE ARE HERE ON THIS CASE AS WELL AS THE CONFLICT THAT YOU HAVE NOW SAID AS A PRAC TICAL MATTER , IT WOULD NOT AF FECT THE DURATION OF HIS SENTENCE , CORRECT?

WELL , AS FAR AS IF T HESENTENCE IS TO BE H I TTING THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM , THAT'S CORRECT. AS FAR AS WHAT THE PROG RAM DOES WITH THE CHILD , I F THEY DID NOT KNOW HOW LONG THE CHILD PREVIOUSLY WAS INSECURE DETENTION, IT WOULD HAVE AN E FFECT POTENTIALLY THAT WAY , BECAUSE OF H OWTHEY WOULD TREAT H I M.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW WE ARE GOING AROUND IN A CIR CLE , SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE CAN'T SAY HOW LONG WAS THIS CHILD INSECURE DETENTION ?

WELL, I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. IT SHOULD BE PRETTY SIM PLE,I WOULD THINK , CALCULATING IT IS PRET TY SIMPLE FROM WHEN THE CHILD IS TA KEN INTO CUSTODY TO WHENEVER THEY ARE RELEASED FROM C USTODY A T VARIOUS TIMES. YOU JUST ADD UP THE VARIOUSTIMES. I THINK IT SHOULDN'T, I AGREE , YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE PEOPLE CAN FOUL UP CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , BUT I THINK IF SOMEONE IS SITTING DOWN AND COMPARING TIME SOMEONE IS TAKEN INTO CUST ODY, I T SHOULDN'T BE ROCK ET SCIENCETO GET THAT DONE , TO COME UPWITH A PERIOD OF T IME SOMEONE HAS BEEN IN CUS TODY .

THAT IS GOING TO I G NORE THE JUVENILE SYSTEM'S RECORDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND SHOW WHEN THE JUVENILE IS TAKEN INTO DETENTION OR WHATEVER , PROBABLY ARE ALSO GOING TO IGNORE SOME NOTATION BY THE TR IAL COURT JUDGE OF THE SAME FACTS, ARE THEY NOT?

WELL , THEY --

I MEAN IF THAT IS THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM , YOU ARE SAYING THAT THEY DON'T TAKE THE TIME.

WELL , JUSTICE AN STEAD , IF THEY ARE JUST BOUN D AND DETERMINED TO IGNORE IT , YOU ARE RIGHT , THAT YOU WOULD, THEN, HAVE TO RELY ON HABEAS OR SOME OTHER RE MEDY TO GET THE PERSON OUT IF THEY B UMP THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM AT THAT PO INT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE QUINCE DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

YES. I JUST WA NT A C LEAR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW A RULING FROM THIS COURT THAT A JUVENILE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR TIME SE RVED , WOULD HELP THIS DEFEND ANT .

IT WOULD HELP THIS DEFENDANT KNOW THAT THE PROGRAM WASN'T A L READY OPERATING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CHILD WAS IN CUSTODY, I BE LIEVE JUSTICE PARIENTE QU OTED, 107 DAYS. IF THEY W E REN'T AWA RE OF THAT, THEY WOULD NOW BE AWARE OF THAT, FOR WHA TEVER PURPOSE IT WOULD HAVE WITHIN THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM. THAT IS HOW IT WOULD H ELP THAT PART ICULAR , THAT PARTICULAR CHILD. AS FAR AS BROADER , T HETROUBLE IS WE HAVE GOT THE BROADER PRINCIPLE ENTANGLED . RIGHT NOW WE HAVE GOT THE FIRST DISTRICT SAYING NO CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED. WE HAVE GOT SEVERA L OTHER DISTRICT SAY HAD GONE THERE IS CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED, SO WE NEED THO TO HAVE S OME PRAC -- WE NEED TO HAVE SOME PRACTICAL --

CHIEF JUSTICE: I NEED TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE IN YOUR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, JUSTICE PARIENTE. I WILL SAVE FOR THE NEXT ROUND.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS TRISHA MEGGS PATE REPRESENTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA.THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION IN ART OLONE SE CTION 1 5, GRANTED THE LEGISLATURE THE PO WER T O CREATE THE JUVENILE JUSTICESYSTEM, AND THE LEGISLATURE, IN DESI GNING THE SYSTEM , DESIGNED AN IN DER N ATIONAL TREATMENT -- -IN DEDETERMINATE TREATMENT-BASED COMMITMENT , WHERE THE PROGRAM G O ALS ARE GIVEN AND THE JUVENILE IS RELEASED B ASED UPON HIS COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM.

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME SAY THAT WHAT MR. HEAD RICK SAID , IN -- MR . HEDRICK SAID, IN TOO MANY CASES, THIS YOUNG MAN WAS INSECURE DETENTION , NOT A TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR 107 DAYS. PART OF IT WAS BEFORE DISPOSITION.PART OF IT WAS AFTER DISPOSITION, AND AS YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE UNFORTUNATE LY DO ES NOT HAVE EN OUGH TREATMENT FACILITIES, SO HOW IS IT THERAPEUTIC AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS FOR T HEDEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO BE KEEPING JUVENILES INSECURE DETENTION , QH THE JUDGE HAS OR DERED THAT THEY GET INTO A TREATMENT PROGRAM , AND H ERE WE ARE TALKING AB OUT 1 07DAYS. THAT IS SEVERAL MONT HS. I HAVE BEEN OVER TO THOSE DETENTION CENTERS, AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT, THEY DON'T LOOK VE RY REHABILITATIVE, AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE DOING THAT , SO HOW DO WE , BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE GOAL FOR THEM TO BE INSECURE DETENTION, SO WHY SHOULDN'TIT AT LEAST BE NOT ED ON THE COMMITMENT ORDER? WHERE IS THE HARM TO AN YONE , IF IT IS NOTE D, AND IN CASES WHERE THEY ARE UP AG AINST THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM, THEN , THAT WILL BE CL EAR.

WELL , NOW, THE TRIALCOURT DID IN ITS ORDER GRANTING AND DENY ING IN THIS CASE, THE MOTION TO CORRECTDISPOSITION, DID NOTE THAT, AND IF THERE WAS ANY THERAPEUTIC VALUE IN T HETREATMENT THAT MET THE PROGRAM GOALS, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT ICE THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO IT IS IN THIS DISPOSITION ORDER?

IN THE W R ITTEN ORDER GRANTING AND IN PART , DENYING THE MOTION TO CORRECT THE DISPOSITIONORDER.AND IN THIS CASE - -

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE STATE HAS NO OP POSITION TO WHAT JUSTICE , JUDGE B E NTON STATED, THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE FOR JUDGES TO N OTE THE AMO UNT OF TIME SERVED INSECURE DETENTION?

THE STATE WOULD ONLY CAUTION THAT , IF WE DO THAT , ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT PERS PERSPECTIVE , IT DOES -- PERSPECTIVE , IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR TO COUNTLESS DISPOSITION ORDERS IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM , LIKE 38 00 MOTION TO SAY GIVE CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IS MEANINGLESS, AS IT IS IN THIS CASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IN PERSPECTIVE , THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY HARM IN THAT.

NOT I F YOU NOTE IT ON T HEJUDGMENT SENTENCE.

THEN WHAT WOULD THEY DO ON THESE PROGRAMS IF THEY Le LEAST CHILD HO ME FOR THE -- IF THEY RELEASE THE CHILD HOME FOR THE WE EK MEND? DO THEY HAVE TO CREDIT THAT BECAUSE THE CHILD IS NOT, I S WITHOUT SUPERVISION?

I THIN K THEY NOTED THAT, AND IN SOME OF THE STATUTES WITH CHITMENT PROGRAMS , THERE CAN BE SOME RELEASE AND AS THE CHILD --

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM, IF IN THE TREATMENT PROGRAM, THAT THE CHILD IS RELEASED TO GO HOME FOR CHRISTMAS BREAK OR WHATEVER, WHICH IS COMM ON. THEY ARE NOT O N MONITORS. THEY ARE NOT HAVING TO CA LL IN A REPO RT. THEY ARE RELEASED . THEN THE DEPARTMENT , IF WE MANDATE THIS, IS, THEN , GOING TO HAVE TO CALCU LATE THAT AND THEN IS IT SUBTRACTED FROM THE PRIOR TIME IN DETENTION DETERM INED , THE OVER ALL LENG TH?

CRE ATING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT MORE ADMINISTRATIVE WO RK , AND ESPECIALLY WHE N IT REALLY DOES NOT SERVE A PURPOSE FOR THE JUVENILE S, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AF FECT THEIR RELEASE DA TE.

WHAT KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WOULD IT CREATE?

JUST LIKE JUSTICE BELL WAS SAYING , CALC ULATING THE DAYS WHEN THEY ARE ON ONE OFF.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IF SOMEBODY WAS INSECURE DETENTION FOR 107 DAYS, WHY IS N'T, AND I GUESS , I AM SU RE I GOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO HOW DOES THE , HOW I S THAT THERAPEUTIC , AND SHOU LDN'T THERE BE SOMETHING THAT AT LEAST SAYS THAT T HEDEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE , WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING , THIS AT L EASTOUGHT TO BE NOTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE , AND THE DISPOSITION ORDER.

THAT I S SUE WASN'T E BBS PLORD IN THIS RECORD , OTHER THAN NOTED THAT THE C HILDHAD LIVED WITH THE FA MILY SINCE A TODD LER , BUT THE FAMILIAR WAS HAVING MORE TROUBLE WITH THE CHILD, A NDTHEN THE CHILD IT WILLLY A T 17, WAS HAVING SEX UAL RELATIONS WITH THE FAMILY 'S 12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, AND THIS RE CORD SAID THE FAMILIAR DID NOT WANT HI M IN THE HOME ANY MORE , SO -- AND THE FAMILIAR DID NOT WANT H IM IN THE HOME ANYM ORE , S O I DON'T KNOW IF THE CHILD HAD ANY OTHER PLACE TO GO. THE CHILD MAY HAVE BEEN IN DETENTION AND THE RECORD --

I WOULD AG REE THAT, I F THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY T YPE OF REQUIREMENT FOR THERE TO BE A NOTATION IN THE JUDGMENT OR SOMEWHERE , THAT IT WOULD, I T SHOULD BE THOUGHT OUT THROUGH THE RULES PROCESS.

THE R ULES. THERE IS NO , THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T CREATE ANY AUTHORIZATION FOR CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , EVEN THO UGH THEY DID IN THE AD ULT SYSTEM, AND THEY GO IN LENG TH AS T O COMMITMENT AND DISPOS ITION IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM IN CHAPTER 985 . THERE IS NO AUTHORIZATIONFOR THAT IN THE RULE, SO IT IS IN THE RULES PROC ESS .

WHAT IS THE STATE'S POSITION AS TO WHEN THE TIME COMES UP AGAINST THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM , SO TH ATYOU HAVE THE LEGISL ATIVE INTENT NOT TO SUB JECT JUVENILES TO MORE INCARCERATION THAN THE ADULT WOULD RECEIVE ?

WELL , I THI NK CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , OUR P O SITION IS THAT, IT IS STATUTORILY BASED. IN THE ADULT SYSTEM IT IS STATUTORILY BASED . IN THE FLORIDA, THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T AUTHORIZEIT IN JUVENILE . THERE IS NO AUTHOR ITY , STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR G IVING JUVENILES CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONF LICT THAT EX ISTS , THOU GH, IF YOU SAY THAT IN A MISDEMEANOR CASE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE TIME IS SIX MONTHS FOR AN ADULT , AND YOU HOLD THE JUVENILE INSECURE DETENTION FOR THR EE MONT HS, AND NOW YOU I MPOSE THE SIX-MONTH SENTENCE UNDER THE MISDEMEANOR. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT I S LAWFUL ?

THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GIVING THEM CREDIT. IF THIS COURT WANT S TO CREATE --

HO W IS IT THAT W E ARE REVIEWING IT AS THE PERSON , THE JUVENILE CAN'T SERVE MORE THAN AN ADULT WOULD HAVE TO SERVE? ALL RIGHT .

THAT'S CORRECT.

NOW, IF THAT IS THE RULE , AND IF AN ADULT WAS HELD IN JAIL FOR THREE MONTHS OF THE SIX-MONTH SENTENCE, THE ADULT WOULD RECEIVE THREE MONTH'S CREDIT AND THEN SERVE ONLY PERSPECTIVELY , THEN, AN ADDITIONAL T HREEMON THS.ARE YOU SAYING THAT, IN THE JUVENILE CASE THAT THE JUVENILE CAN BE PUNISHED MORE SEVERELY THAN THE ADULT COULD?

I DON'T THINK IT IS MORE SEVERELY. IT --

NOT MORE SEVERELY TO H OLD SOMEBODY FOR NINE MON THS INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS?

NO, SIR. WHAT I SAY IS THE JUVENILE , IF IT IS AN IN DETERMINE NATIONAL SENTENCE BASED ON THE TREATMENT PROGRAM --

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE. THE HYPOTHETICAL I AM GIVING YOU NOW IS THE ACT UAL CASE OF A MISDEM EANOR , ALL RIGHT , WHERE THE MAXIMUM IS SIX MONTHS, AND I AM ASKING WHAT THE DEPART MENT'S POSITION IS , IF A JUVENILE IS SENTEN CED TO THE SIX MONTHS , WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE THREE MONTH'S CREDIT , IF IT IS A SITUATION LIKE THAT THIS, WHERE THEY SERVED INSECURE DETENTION FOR THREE MONTHS BEFORE BEING SENTENCED. WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION ON THAT ISSUE?

IF IT IS A DETERM INED SENTENCE, THE JUVENILE GE TS -- CORRECT.

CREDIT .

PROBABLY THEY SHOULD GETTHE CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED. IT DOES KIND OF AT WHAT TIME TRT THE -- IT DOES KIND O F THWART THE TREATMENT IF THEY ARE IN A TREATMENT PROGRAM. IT COULD THWART THAT.

TELL ME WHAT IT IS . DO THEY GET CREDIT IN THIS SITUATION OR DO THEY NOT GET CREDIT?

MOST COURTS HAVE AUTHORIZED CREDFO YT THAT AND IN THIS SITUATION THE DETERMINATE SENTENCE IS N OTTHE IN DER NATIONAL SENTENCE , BECAUSE WHEN IT IS THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, YOU ARE MA NDATING THEIR RELEASE BEFORE THEY HAVE GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE PROGRAM THAT THEY ARE IN .

ARE THEY PUT IN PROGRAMS WHEN THEY ARE CONVICTED O F MISS DHEENORS ? -- OF MISDEMEANORS? IF THEY ARE , THE N THE QUESTION IS HOW IS IT ANY DIFFERENT, IF YOU GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED ON A MISDEMEANOR , VE RSUS GIVING THEM TIME SERVED ON A FELONY? IF THE GOAL IS TO COMPLETE THE PROGRAM , Y ET THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CREDIT ON THE MISDEMEANOR AND WHE THER THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE PROGRAMOR NOT , THEY ARE GO ING TO HAVE TO BE OUT, AND JUSTICE ANSTEAD 'S HYPOTHETICAL IN THREE MONTHS. WHY SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENT RULE FOR F ELONY SITUATIONS?

I THINK IN MISD EMEANOR S WE JUST HAVE LESS TIME TO HAVE THEM IN A PROGRAM. OUR TIME IS VERY LIMI TE D WITH THEM IN A MISDEMEANOR SITUATION N A FE LONY SITUATION, WE HAVE FIVE YEARS , 15 YEARS , YOU K NOW , 30 YEARS TO HAVE A CHILD IN A PROGRAM.

MORE TIME IN THE FELONY SITUATION.

CORRECT.

IF THE DEPA RTMENT STARTS RIGHT AWAY AND GIVES THEM THE KIND OF TREATMENT THAT YOU NEEDED , SO IT SEEMS THAT IT WOULD, REALLY , BE MORE IMPORTANT TO GET THAT CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED , AND THE FELONY SITUATION .

WELL, THEN YOU ARE HAVING THE CHILD, SAY, RELEASED , YOU KNOW , LET'S GET THIS CHILD 1 07 D A YS BE FORE HE COMPLETES THE PROGRAM. DO YOU RELEASE H IM THEN BECAUSE HE SERVED THAT TIME INSECURE DETENTION BEFORE?

THIS IS MY CON CERN ABOUT THESE SITUATIONS . UNFORTUNATELY , THOSE JUVENILES THAT ARE IN A SECURE DETENTION , AS OUR MANY STUDIES SHOW , INCL UDING STUDIES THAT THIS COURT AUTHORIZED , DISP ARTLY IM PACT MINORITIES . POOR PE OPLE , MANY TIMES , THE DEPENDENCY SYSTEM, AS YOU , THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE , A FO STER PA RENT , DELINQUENT IS ARRE STED , AND THE FOSTER PARENT SAYS I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH T HIS CHILD , AND THOS E ARE THE CHILDREN THAT, UNFORTUN ATELY THEY ARE PROBABLY IN MOST NEED OF HELP , THAT A RESITTING THERE INSECURE DETENTION , SO I MEAN , THEY, OBVIOUSLY THE OPTIM UM WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE CHILDREN GET INTO A TREATMENT PROGRAM IMMEDIATELY, BUT SHORT OF THAT, SHOULD N'T T HEDEPARTMENT, AND , AGAIN , I THINK I AGREE WITH JUSTICE WELLS THAT WE ARE SITTING HERE, IF IT IS NOT A MISDEMEANOR OR THIRD-DE GREE FELONY, WITH THIS HAS TO THE RULE POWE R OR THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, BUT Y OUKNOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY WE THINK THIS IS A G OOD IDEA THAT THIS BE DONE , BECAUSE IT IS REA LL Y ANTI-THERAPEUTIC TO PUT SOMEBODY INSECURE DETENTION WHO NEEDS A TREATMENT PROGRAM, AND THEN NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVEBEEN IN THAT SITUATION.

CORRECT . THE , AND THE CHILD IN THIS CASE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE HAD ANYPLACE TO G O.HE WAS RAISED BY THIS FAMILIAR FROM A TODD LER TO 17 , BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT HIM BACK AFTER HE WAS HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR 12-YEAR-OLD UNDERSTANDABLY.

IT WAS THE WA IVER OF THE TIME PERIOD IN THE STATUTE THAT WAS AT THE RE QUEST OF THE DEFENDANT IN PRE PARATION FOR TRIAL, OR DOES THERECORD REFLECT?

THE RECORD DOESN'T REFLECT THAT. IT WASN'T AN ISSUE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: THERE MA Y HAVE BEEN TYPES THAT THE STATE IMPAC TS AN AGR EEMENT, SAY, FROM THE DEFENSE THAT THEY WON'T CH ARGE THE DEFENDANT AS AN ADULT , IF THEY WILL WAIVE THAT STATU TORY TIME .

I AM SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT AS A CONDITION TO NOT CH ARGING THEM AS AN ADULT , THEY ESSENTIALLY REQU IRE THE DEFENDANT TO WAIVE ANY STATUTORY RIGHT, ONLY TO BE INSECURE DETENTION FOR 21 DAYS .

I BELIEVE THAT THE STATE COULD NEGOTIATE ANY KIND , INDEPENDENT NEGOTIATION .

AS TO 935.231-D , B ACK ON THE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE, IT SAYS THAT ANY KIND OF COMMITMENT OF THE DELINQUENT CHILD TO THE DEPARTMENT MUST BE FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD, AND THE TIME MAY N OTEXCEED THE MAXIMUM TIME OF IMPRISONMENT THAT AN ADULT MAY SERVE, EXC EPT THAT THE DURATION OF A MINIMUM -RI SK NONRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT FOR SECOND-DEGREE MISDEMEANOR MAY BE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EX CEED S IXMONTHS. NOW, WHY WOULD THEY USE THE LANGUAGE "ACCEP T MAY PHONE A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS" FOR THAT, IF WE A REGOING TO GIVE CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IN DETENTION?

I THINK THE LEGISL ATURE , I MEAN, YOU KNOW , THEY PR INT , A LOT OF TIME DRA FTING THE COMMITMENT STATUTES AND THEY DIDN'T AUTHORIZE CREDFO YT TIME SERVED IN THE STATUTE -- CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IN THE STATUTE, BECAUSE THEY WANT THE JUVENILE IN THE TREATMENT PROGRAM, HOPEFULLY PROVIDING THE JUVENILE SOME TREATMENT, AND SO THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZING CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED FOR JUVENILES .

SO TO AN SWER JUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION, IS IT YOUR READIN G OF THE STAT UTE THAT, IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY CHARGED WITH A SECOND-DEGREE MISDEMEANOR AND THEY SERVE 30 DAYS IN DIS TENSION AND THEN ARE COMMIT -- IN DETENTION AND THEN ARE COMMITED?

THAT IS A PURE READ ING OF THE STATUTE, THAT THEY ARE COMMITTED.

THEY DO NOT GET THE CREDIT?

BUT IT IS FOR SIX MONTHS. MY ANSWER IS THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR CREDIT. THE STATE WOULD ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE FIRST DCA.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU. MR. HEDR ICK , REBUTTAL .

THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE. I WANT TO TRY AND COME BACK AND HIT A FEW OF THE POINTS THAT WERE JUST HIT BY YOU ALL IN DISCUSS ION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP AGAIN .

STEP UP TO THE MIKE . GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION , FIRST , CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE, YES , QU ITE OFTENTIMES THERE IS A AGREEMENT WHE RE, IF SOMEONE , WE AGREE TO ACCEPT AN AGREEMENT TO KEEP SOME ONE IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM. THE STATE AGREES NOT TO DIRECT-FILE AGAINST THEM, WHICH I MIGHT ADD U SED TO BE THE CASE. FLORIDA WAS EQUAL OF ALL OF THE OTHER STATE S IN T HEUNITED STATES, IN TERMS OF HOW THEY DIRECT-F ILE CHILDREN T MAY NOT BE T HAT CASE NOW. IT USED TO BE THE CASE, THAT THEY HAVE TO R E MAIN INSECURE DETENTION, AND I MIGHT ADD , THAT SECURE DETENTION , BUTTHERE IS A PROVISION IN T HESTATUTE. THIS PARTIC ULAR GENTLEMAN FOR EX AMPLE , WENT TO A LE VEL 8, HIGH-R ISK FACILI TY. UNDER THE STATUTE , HE I S REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN, QU OTE , DETENTION CARE. DETENTION CARE CAN BE E ITHER HOME DETENTION OR SECURE DETENTION, BUT MOST OF T HETIME WHEN IT IS THIS TYPE O F CRIME , THIS TYPE OF LEVEL , THEY ARE KEPT INSECURE DETENTION. MOST JUDGES INTERPRET IT THAT WAY, SO THEY DON'T LET THEM OUT. THEY ARE NO RMALLY KEPT IN THE FACILITY FOR THAT LE NGTH OF TIME . NOW , OBVIOUSLY THE TIME HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLUDED TO AND SECURE DETENTION ISN'T THERAPEUTIC.WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FRAN KLY AND VOLUNTARY COER CE D CONFINEMENT . THEY HAVE BARBED WIRE AND STEEL BEDS, LO CKED FACI LITY. THEY ARE ABOUT AS C LOSE TO A COUNTY JAIL TYPE OF SITUATION AS YOU ARE GO ING TO GET HERE. NOW, FRAN KLY , JUVENILES CAN AND ARE PUNISHED MORE SEVERELY THAN ADULTS. I WILL GIVE YOU A PER FECT EXAMPLE.IF SOMEONE IS IN A COUNTY JAIL SITUATION SENTENCED T O 60 DAYS FOR A SECOND-DEGREE MISDEMEANOR. KEEP IT E ASY. NORMALLY IN LEON COUNTY JAIL AND I THINK IT IS THE S AM E WAY WITH MOST OF THE JAILS AROUND THE STATE. FOR EVERY MONTH YOU ARE THERE , YOU GET F IVE DAYS O F,QUOTE , GAIN TIME AND TODAY WE ARE NOT GETTING INTO THE WHOLE GAIN TIME SITUATION, OKAY, BUT SOMEONE IN AN ADULT SITUATION WILL PROBABLY END UP SERVING ABOUT 50 DAYS A FTERSENTENCE. IN JUVENILE , YOU WILL SERVE 60 DAYS. IF YOU ARE , IF YOU SERVE AN ENTIRE TIME OF THE PROGRAM, YOU WILL SERVE 60 DAYS , SO AT LE AST ALREADY , EVEN WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE WHOLE BUSINESS OF DO YOU GET CREDIT BEFORE, YOU ARE GOING TO SERVE MORE TIME THAN YOU WOULD FOR THE EQUIVALENT TIME AS AN ADULT.

DO YOU DIS AGREE THAT ALL OF THE CREDIT FOR AL L OF THE GAIN TIMES, ET CETERA , ARE STATUTORY CREATURES ? THEY WEREN'T MAND ATED BY THIS COURT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL MAN DATE , IS THAT TRUE?

UNDER THE ADULT SE TTING THAT IS TRUE. IT WAS A STATUTORY CREA TURE. I THINK ONE OF THE THIN G THAT IS WE ARE TALK A BOUT THAT NEEDS TO HA PPEN TODAY IS, SINCE THE LEGISL ATURE SO FAR HAS NOT CHOSEN TO SEE FIT TO ADDRESS THE SITUATIO N, SINCE WE HAVE THIS DISPARATE TREATMENT BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT DISTRICT IN FLORIDA, WE NEED SOME CERTAINTY OF THIS , AND OUR CERTAINTY IS WE GIVE THEM CREDFOYT TIME SERVED EVERYWHERE.

THE STATUTORY B ASIS FOR THAT IS?

WELL , I THINK THE STATUTORY BASIS, YOU STARTWITH THE MAXIMUM. THE JUVENILE CAN'T S ERVEMORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT TIME AS AN ADULT. YOU CAN'T GO BEYO ND THE MAXIMUM.

SO HOW WOULD YOU AN SWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ON THE SECOND-DEGREE MISDEMEANOR SHALL NOT , EXC EPT MAY NOT EXCEED 6 MONTHS THAT. IS GREATER THAN THE A DULTSENTENCE FOR A SECOND-DEGREE MISDEMEANOR.

IN THE ADULT STATUTE , I DON'T HAVE AT MY FINGERTI PS BUT I THO UGHT IF IT TALKS ABOUT A NONCOMMITMENTSITUATION.YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I A M WRONG, BU T I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE TAL KED ABOUT.

IT SAYS MINI MU M RI SK NONRESIDENTIAL COMMIT MENT.

HERE IN TALLAHASSEE L IKE THE TALLAHASSEE M A RINE INSTITUTE, A RESI DENTIAL PROGRAM WHERE THEY ARE THERE DURING THE DAYTIME AND LI VE AT HOME AT NIGHT. THEY ARE NOT LIKE IN A DETENTION CENTER OR COMMITMENT FACILITY FOR THE ENTIRE TIME , SO THAT IS DISTINGUISHABLE VERSUS GOING TO A COMMITMENT PROGRAMSOMEWHERE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WITH THAT , WE HAVE USED UP YOUR TIME.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH , CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU , BOTH OF YOU, FOR YOUR TIME IN ORAL ARG UMENT AND THE RESPONSIVENESS TO OUR QUESTIONS.WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE OUR MORNING RE CESS OF 15 MINUTES AND RETURN FOR THE LAST CASE.

MARSHAL: P LEASE RISE.