FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Patrice W. Moore,
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E.
Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant
Public Defender, Tampa, for Appellee.
LaROSE, Chief Judge.
State appeals an order dismissing T.A.K.'s delinquency
case due to the expiration of an earlier imposed probationary
term. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.145(c)(1)(A). We affirm.
pleaded guilty to the delinquent act of battery. The trial
court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed T.A.K.
on six months' probation. The probationary term was to
end on October 28, 2016. On September 15, 2016, the State
filed an unsworn "Notice of violation of court order,
" stating that T.A.K. had failed to comply with his
probationary requirements. The State wanted the trial court
to hold T.A.K. in contempt for his "fail[ure] to comply
with multiple sanctions required by his case manager."
The notice specified no material facts underlying the
trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for October 25,
2016. T.A.K. was present for that hearing before Judge Moore.
However, the parties were unable to proceed because defense
counsel represented that he might have a conflict of
interest. Consequently, the trial court rescheduled the
hearing to October 27, 2016. On October 26, the State filed
an unsworn petition seeking to revoke T.A.K.'s probation.
did not appear at the October 27 hearing. The State stated
that, if T.A.K. were present, it was prepared to proceed on
the revocation of probation. Nevertheless, because of the
approaching October 28 expiration of T.A.K.'s
probationary term, the State asked the trial court to extend
its jurisdiction beyond October 28. The trial court (Judge
Coleman) agreed. Judge Coleman reasoned that T.A.K.'s
probationary term had been tolled by the State's filing
of the October 26 petition. He also concluded that tolling
occurred because the revocation proceeding began at the
October 27 hearing, prior to the termination date.
January 27, 2017, T.A.K. filed a motion to dismiss the
petition due to the expiration of jurisdiction. Following a
February 2, 2017, hearing, the trial court (Judge Moore)
granted the motion, despite Judge Coleman's earlier
ruling to extend jurisdiction.
State raises two arguments. First, the State contends that it
properly filed the petition and that revocation proceedings
were initiated before the October 28 expiration of probation.
Thus, according to the State, the trial court retained
jurisdiction. Second, the State argues that the trial court
impermissibly considered T.A.K.'s motion to dismiss, as
it was in actuality an untimely motion for rehearing.
See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.130(b)(1) (requiring a motion
for rehearing "be made within 10 days of the entry of
the order being challenged"). We reject the second
argument without further comment. We reject the first
argument, too; however, we ...