D.M. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1242

D.M., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of harassing a witness against counsel's advice.
Disposition hearing on January 5, 2010 adjudicated D.M. delinquent and committed him to a high-risk sexual offender program until age 21.
On January 15, 2010, D.M., through counsel, filed motions to withdraw his pleas; the circuit court denied them on March 5, 2010.
D.M. filed a notice of appeal on March 19, 2010 challenging the disposition orders and the denial of the motions to withdraw pleas.
The appeal as to the disposition orders is untimely because no authorized tolling motion (under juvenile procedure) tolled rendition; the appeals court lacks jurisdiction.
The disposition orders are based on D.M.’s guilty pleas, and under juvenile appellate rules there is no direct avenue to appeal such an order; habeas corpus provides the proper route to challenge voluntariness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal for disposition orders	D.M. argues timely appeal under applicable rules.	State contends tolling did not apply; orders were untimely.	Dispositional orders are untimely; no jurisdiction to review.
Appealability of orders entered after adjudication based on pleas	Rule 9.145 governs appeals of plea-based orders in juvenile cases.	Rule 9.145 does not authorize review of juvenile disposition orders; no direct appeal.	Cannot review plea-based disposition orders on direct appeal.
Proper route to challenge voluntariness of pleas	Voluntariness challenges should be raised on direct appeal if preserved.	Voluntariness challenges must be raised via habeas corpus when appeal routes are unavailable.	A habeas petition is the proper vehicle to contest voluntariness of pleas.
Effect of unauthorized motions to withdraw pleas	Motions to withdraw pleas should be reviewable on appeal.	In delinquency, motions to withdraw are not authorized after disposition.	authorize? Denial of the unauthorized motions is reversed; strike motions without prejudice to habeas petition.
Remedies on remand	Court should address voluntariness if habeas petition is filed.	Court should strike or treat motions appropriately.	Remand with directions to strike motions; permit habeas petition and evidentiary hearing if filed.

P.W. v. State, 37 So.3d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (juvenile rules do not authorize post-disposition plea-withdrawal motions)
J.M.B. v. State, 750 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (juvenile rules limitations on post-disposition motions)
State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204 (Fla.2001) (preservation requirements for voluntariness claims on appeal)
D.E.R. v. State, 993 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (habeas route for voluntariness challenges where direct appeal unavailable)
In re W.B., 428 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (procedural framework for habeas-like evidentiary proceedings)
Molina v. State, 942 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (need for evidentiary hearings when record does not rebut involuntariness claims)
Garcia v. State, 846 So.2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (evidentiary hearing when voluntariness challenged under plea provisions)
Williams v. State, 971 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (procedural treatment of unauthorized post-plea motions in juvenile cases)