Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ear. Thus, we approve the Second District's decision in N.W. and disapprove the Fifth District's decision in G.R.A. FACTS On November 12, 1996, the State of Florida filed a petition charging N.W. with disruption of a school function, in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (1995), a second-degree misdemeanor....

...Butterworth, Attorney General, and Fleur J. Lobree, Assistant Attorney General, and Sandra Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LEVY, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ. GREEN, Judge. M.C., a juvenile was found guilty in a delinquency proceeding of violating section 877.13, Florida Statutes (1995) which makes it unlawful for anyone, among other things, to knowingly disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution....

...The officer stated that he was basically concerned about everyone's safety in the office. Once M.C. was arrested, the group of students who had accompanied her to the office quickly dispersed and left. II The state filed a one count petition of delinquency against M.C. for violation of section 877.13....

...moved to dismiss the delinquency proceeding on the grounds that this statute was *480 facially unconstitutional. The trial court denied this motion and subsequently found M.C. guilty as charged. III As we are faced with a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of section 877.13, we find that our first task is to determine whether this statute reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct under the First Amendment....

...The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2303, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)(footnotes omitted). The obvious intent of section 877.13 is to ensure that the educational institutions and their administrators are free to perform their lawful functions without undue or unwarranted interference or disruption from others....

...e in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder." Id. at 514, 89 S.Ct. at 740. The clear factual distinction between the statute challenged in Tinker and section 877.13 is that the prohibited conduct in Tinker addressed pure controversial expression which was entirely divorced from actual or potential disruptive conduct by those participating in it. Id. at 505, 89 S.Ct. at 735-36. For that reason, the Tinker Court concluded that the students were entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. Id. at 505-06, 89 S.Ct. at 735-36 We conclude that section 877.13 does pass constitutional muster and is not violative of the First Amendment under the Tinker test because its intended purpose is to prevent only that expression or conduct which materially disrupts or interferes with normal school functions or activities....

...thus interfered or disrupted with their normal school regimen as well. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that M.C.'s activities were entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. OVERBREADTH ARGUMENT M.C. also asserts that section 877.13 is overbroad on its face because it imposes a blanket prohibition against creating a disturbance without any language tying the prohibited expression to disruption of normal school activities at fixed times....

...Given this `particular context,' the ordinance gives `fair notice to those to whom (it) is directed.' Grayned, 408 U.S. at 112, 92 S.Ct. at 2301 (footnotes omitted). We similarly find that although the prohibited quantum of disturbance is also not specified in section 877.13, the measure is clearly whether the normal lawful school functions or activities have been or are about to be interfered with or disrupted....

...property). Contrary to M.C.'s arguments, this statute was enacted specifically for the school setting, where the prohibited disturbances can easily be measured by their impact on the normal school functions and activities. For these reasons, we find section 877.13 to be wholly distinguishable from the statute struck down by the Florida Supreme Court in McCall v....

...The court held that this portion of section 231.07 was unconstitutional because it was not "narrowly tailored to further the state's legitimate interests, and encompassed speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments." [5] Id. at 872. VAGUENESS ARGUMENT M.C.'s final challenge to section 877.13 is that it is vague both on its face and as applied because the prohibited "disruptive" or "interfering" conduct is not objectively defined in the statute....

...element of offense); Cf. Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 163, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843-44, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (general intent vagrancy statute unconstitutionally vague because it lacked specific intent requirement). We note immediately that section 877.13 does contain a specific scienter requirement that a person act "knowingly" to interfere or disrupt school functions or activities....

...nary meaning is "[t]o throw into confusion or disorder ... [t]o interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of ... [t]o break or burst; rupture." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 538 (3d ed.1992). Giving the terms in section 877.13 their plain and ordinary meaning, we conclude that this statute is not vague because it seeks to prohibit any conduct, acts, etc., which are specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school's property. M.C. attempts to analogize section 877.13 to the ordinance struck down for vagueness in Coates v....

...at 1688 (citation omitted). Essentially, the Court determined that a violation of this ordinance may depend entirely upon whether or not a policeman is annoyed. Id. M.C.'s assertions to the contrary, we do not think that the same can be said of section *484 877.13....

...We think that the prohibited conduct or acts under this statute can be objectively measured against their effect or impact on the progress of the school's normalized functions. M.C.'s intentional loud tirade and protests in the school's office clearly, amounted to prohibited conduct under section 877.13....

...We affirm appellant's conviction for battery on a school board employee. § 784.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). We reverse the conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. § 877.13(1)(a), Fla....

...Unlike A.C. v. State, 479 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appellant did not pick a fight with students waiting to go home on the school bus; transportation of students to and from school is clearly part of the administration of an educational institution under section 877.13(1)....

...) to remove the charge for attorney's fees and for restitution from the order of disposition, on the basis that neither charge had been orally pronounced in court. The trial court summarily denied the motion. This case involves the interpretation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...rds refusing to go." That incident "absolutely" caused "a scene." With the aid of another officer, the juvenile was forcibly removed. An assistant principal testified that the juvenile's refusal to leave with the police officer disrupted the events. Section 877.13 states that "[i]t is unlawful for any person knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state." § 877.13, Fla....

...ction and so long as disciplinary measures imposed by them are within reason, they will not be disturbed." Satan Fraternity v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 156 Fla. 222, 22 So.2d 892, 893 (1945). In the matter below, appellant was charged with violating section 877.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which makes it unlawful for any person "knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in...

...Fried, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. HAZOURI, J. J.J., a child, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for disrupting the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. We affirm. The state filed a petition for delinquency, alleging that J.J. violated section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2005), [1] by disrupting the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution....

...Viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence in this case was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that J.J. intended to disrupt or interfere with a school activity and succeeded in doing so. Affirmed. SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2005), provides in relevant part: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) Knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state. (b) Knowingly to advise, counsel, or instruct any school pupil or school employee to disrupt any school or school board function, activity on school board property, or classroom. § 877.13, Fla....

...and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. The State charged the appellant, J.M.S., by delinquency petition with disorderly conduct in violation of section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2004), and disruption of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(1)(a)....

...nable to control T.J. by himself. The security officer attempted to calm T.J., but T.J. would not comply, and ultimately, T.J. was arrested. T.J. contends that there was insufficient evidence that he interfered or disrupted a normal school function. Section 877.13, Florida Statutes, provides: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...said that he did not care and did not want to be in that school anyway. This behavior constitutes the disruption of an educational institution. Compare M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that appellant's conduct amounted to prohibited conduct under section 877.13 where secretaries and aides in the office were temporarily unable to perform their clerical duties, the school police officer was drawn away from completing an arrest of appellant's brother, and students who joined in protest were distracted from their classes or other school activities)....

...England (Ft.Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., SHEVIN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. S.W.W., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency finding him guilty of willfully interrupting or disturbing a school in violation of section 877.13, Fla....

...The record does not support a finding that the juvenile acted "with the intention that his behavior impede the successful functioning" of the school or that he acted "with reckless disregard of the effect of his behavior." Id. Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal for violation of section 877.13.

SHEPHERD, J. S.L. appeals an adjudication of guilt for interfering with the administration and functions of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), and resisting arrest without violence in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...as originally planned. S.L. was Baker Acted at that facility. 3 On November 1, 2010, after a non-jury trial, S.L. was adjudicated guilty of knowingly disrupting or interfering with the administration or functions of an educational institution under section 877.13(l)(a), and resisting arrest without violence in violation of section 806.13(l)(b)....

...State, 976 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). While the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, if the State fails to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of the crime charged, then a judgment of dismissal is proper. Id. Section 877.13(l)(a) states: “(1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) Knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution.” We previously have addressed the elements of the crime of “knowingly disrupting or interfering with the administration or functions of an educational institution” in M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). 4 Although M.C. involved a facial challenge to section 877.13 on the grounds it violated M.C.’s right to freedom of speech and was over-broad and vague, M.C....

...The main office of the school contained the principal’s office. As a result of M.C.’s actions and loud verbal outbursts, the duties and functions of those in the office temporarily were brought to a halt. Id. at 479 . We affirmed M.C.’s adjudication under section 877.13(l)(a). We concluded section 877.13 suffered from none of the constitutional maladies alleged, noting that culpable intent is a necessary element of the offense. We explained: The obvious intent of section 877.13 is to ensure that the educational institutions *1084 and their administrators are free to perform their lawful functions without undue or unwarranted interference or disruption from others....

...The “intended purpose” of the statute, we concluded, “is to prevent only that expression or conduct which materially disrupts or interferes with normal school functions or activities.” Id. at 481 (emphasis added); see also A.M.P. v. State, 927 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (recognizing section 877.13 prohibits conduct “specifically and intentionally designed to stop or impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school’s property.”) (citing T.J....

...There was no disruption of either lunch or classroom activities. We find no evidence, as well, from which it can be inferred that S.L. specifically and intentionally intended to stop or impede any activity. See A.M.P., 927 So.2d at 100 (concluding child’s conduct did not violate section 877.13 where State offered no evidence child intended to disrupt school’s function by getting into a fight with another student in a bathroom, and by intentionally bumping an assistant principal who broke up the fight, or that any function was disrupted); L.T. v. State, 941 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding child’s conduct did not violate section 877.13 where State offered no evidence that child intended to stop or impede the progress of any normal school function by joining an ongoing fight for the purpose of protecting her sister, even if she knew the fight was disrupting the campus); S.W.W. v. State, 833 So.2d 877, 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (concluding child’s conduct did not violate section 877.13 where State did not establish that the child acted “with the intention that his behavior impede the successful functioning” of the school or that he acted “with reckless disregard of the effect of his behavior”)....

...(aged 15), was chai'ged in a petition for delinquency with disorderly conduct in violation of section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2007), and with disruption or interference with the lawful administration of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...*637 Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee. WOLF, C.J. We reverse appellant's conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or function of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(1), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...and two other boys had chased appellant off campus. A.O. testified that he did not see appellant run off campus, nor did he chase appellant off campus. Approximately three to four hundred students were late to their next classes as a result of the incident. Section 877.13(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...In M.C., a juvenile entered the school's office to protest her brother's arrest, "hurl[ed] obscenities" at the arresting officer, and "wav[ed] ... her arms as if to encourage or incite the other students to join in the protest of her brother's arrest." Id. at 479. The Third District in M.C. noted that the apparent intent of section 877.13 is to ensure that educational institutions and their administrators are able to perform their lawful functions without undue or unwarranted interference or disruption, and the court held that because the juvenile's actions "brought the...

...Unlike the facts in M.C., where the defendant took intentional action to cause a disruption of the school's function, there is no evidence that such intentional action occurred here. Appellant argues that this case is similar to T.H. and that T.H. should be controlling. *638 There a juvenile was convicted under section 877.13(1) for engaging in a fight with another student over a girl on a high school campus before school began in the morning....

...uct. After preparing a pre-disposition report, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed M.M. on community control. This appeal followed. Only two issues raised by M.M. merit discussion. M.M. claims that he cannot be found to have violated section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2007), because his conduct, which resulted in the disruption of bus transportation, occurred after school. In relevant part, section 877.13 provides: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...involved a fight in a high school bathroom where the evidence established there was no disruption to the remainder of the school but, rather, was limited to a fight between two students. A.M.P. should not be read to require disruption of classes to constitute a violation of section 877.13....

...In this case, the evidence showed that M.M. knew there were other students on the bus as it prepared to leave and that by leaving the bus he disrupted its schedule, as well as the schedule of other buses. That is sufficient to establish a violation of section 877.13. See T.J. v. State, 867 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (student's refusal to calm down, despite repeated warnings, which interfered with community assistant's ability to assist other students, was a violation of section 877.13); T.T. v. State, 865 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (student's refusal to leave with an officer that disrupted a high school awards ceremony violated section 877.13); J.J. v. State, 944 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (inciting female students to fight, despite repeated requests to stop, that resulted in cafeteria getting louder, crowd forming around a table, and disruption of breakfast service, violated section 877.13)....

...Thus, we approve the Second District’s decision in N.W. and disapprove the Fifth District’s decision in G.R.A FACTS On November 12, 1996, the State of Florida filed a petition charging N.W. with disruption of a school function, in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (1995), a second-degree misdemeanor....

...ting inapplicable. Specifically (a) section 228.091(1), Florida Statutes (1989) reaches only activity “upon the campus or any other facility owned by any such school,” (b) section 228.091(2) requires a trespass “upon school property” and (c) section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities “on school board property.” See Z.B....

...We affirm appellant’s conviction for battery on a school board employee. § 784.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). We reverse the conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. § 877.13(l)(a), Fla....

...C. v. State, 479 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appellant did not pick a fight with students waiting to go home on the school bus; transportation of students to and from school is clearly part of the administration of an educational institution under section 877.13(1)....

an educational institution in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2016), for which the court

...elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain the conviction.” Id. However, a judgment of dismissal is proper if the State fails to prove a prima facie case of the crime at issue. Id. Section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2005), defines the crime of disrupting a school function as follows: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) Knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. A.C. v. State, 479 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); § 877.13(l)(a), Fla....

...and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. The State charged the appellant, J.M.S., by delinquency petition with disorderly conduct in violation of section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2004), and disruption of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(l)(a)....

...nable to control T.J. by himself. The security officer attempted to calm T.J., but T.J. would not comply, and ultimately, T.J. was arrested. T.J. contends that there was insufficient evidence that he interfered or disrupted a normal school function. Section 877.13, Florida Statutes, provides: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...said that he did not care and did not want to be in that school anyway. This behavior constitutes the disruption of an educational institution. Compare M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that appellant’s conduct amounted to prohibited conduct under section 877.13 where secretaries and aides in the office were temporarily unable to perform their clerical duties, the school police officer was drawn away from completing an arrest of appellant’s brother, and students who joined in protest were distracted from their classes or other school activities)....

guilty in a delinquency proceeding of violating section 877.13, Florida Statutes (1995) which makes it unlawful

WOLF, C.J. We reverse appellant’s conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or function of an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(1), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...and two other boys had chased appellant off campus. A.O. testified that he did not see appellant run off campus, nor did he chase appellant off campus. Approximately three to four hundred students were late to their next classes as a result of the incident. Section 877.13(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....

...rlfed] obscenities” at the arresting officer, and “wav[ed] ... her arms as if to encourage or incite the other students to join in the protest of her brother’s arrest.” Id. at 479. The Third District in M.C. noted that the apparent intent of section 877.13 is to ensure that educational institutions and their administrators are able to perform their lawful functions without undue or unwarranted interference or disruption, and the court held that because the juvenile’s actions “brought...

...Unlike , the facts in M.C., where the defendant took intentional action to cause a disruption of the school’s function, there is no evidence that such intentional action occurred here. Appellant argues that this case is similar to T.H. and that T.H. should be control *638 ling. There a juvenile was convicted under section 877.13(1) for engaging in a fight with another student over a girl on a high school campus before school began in the morning....

...A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. GERBER, C.J. The juvenile appeals from the circuit court’s disposition order following the court finding him guilty of disrupting an educational institution in violation of Section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2016)....

...viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Id. at 969–70 (internal citations omitted). Applying the foregoing standard of review, we agree with the juvenile’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal. Section 877.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), states: “It is unlawful for any person . . . [k]nowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state.” We previously have interpreted section 877.13(1)(a) as follows: The statute is designed to prohibit acts that are specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school’s property....

...ts or interferes with normal school functions or activities. T.T. v. State, 865 So. 2d 674, 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (emphasis added; internal alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted). Our sister courts similarly have held that section 877.13(1)(a) contains a specific intent element....

...some sort of purposeful interference with school activities.”); C.K. v. State, 850 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“This statute contains a specific scienter requirement . . . .”) (citations omitted). The third district further has held that section 877.13(1)(a)’s use of the term “‘disrupt’ is synonymous with ‘interfere’ and its plain and ordinary meaning is to throw into confusion or disorder [or] to interrupt or impede 4 the progress, movement, or procedure of [or] to break or burst; rupture.” M.C. v. State, 695 So. 2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (alterations, citations, and some quotation marks omitted). We agree with those holdings and have considered their import in our evaluation of this case. Of the many cases applying section 877.13(1)(a) to various factual scenarios, the most factually analogous case is our opinion in T.H. v. State, 797 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). T.H. states, in pertinent part: We reverse the conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. § 877.13(1)(a), Fla....

...2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appellant did not pick a fight with students waiting to go home on the school bus; transportation of students to and from school is clearly part of the administration of an educational institution under section 877.13(1)....

...and (5) had to be forcibly escorted by two other school employees from the cafeteria). In sum, not every school fight, and not every event which draws other students’ attention, amounts to disrupting an educational institution in violation of section 877.13(1)(a)....

PER CURIAM. S.W.W., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency finding him guilty of willfully interrupting or disturbing a school in violation of section 877.13, Fla....

...The record does not support a finding that the juvenile acted “with the intention that his behavior impede the successful functioning” of the school or that he acted “with reckless disregard of the effect of his behavior.” Id. Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal for violation of section 877.13.

PER CURIAM. Q.K. pleaded no contest to disruption of an educational facility in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2003), a second degree misdemeanor that, if committed by an adult, is punishable by up to sixty days in jail....

...2d DCA 2001). Here, M.J.Y. was convicted of disrupting a school campus or function and trespass in an occupied structure. The offense of disrupting a school campus or function is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by up to sixty days in jail. § 877.13(l)(a), Fla....

...to go.” That incident “absolutely” caused “a scene.” With the aid of another officer, the juvenile was forcibly removed. An assistant principal testified that the juvenile’s refusal to leave with the police officer disrupted the events. Section 877.13 states that “[i]t is unlawful for any person knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state.” § 877.13, Fla....

HAZOURI, J. J.J., a child, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for disrupting the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. We affirm. The state filed a petition for delinquency, alleging that J.J. violated section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2005), 1 by disrupting the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution....

...Viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence in this case was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that J.J. intended to disrupt or interfere with a school activity and succeeded in doing so. Affirmed. SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2005), provides in relevant part: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) Knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state. (b) Knowingly to advise, counsel, or instruct any school pupil or school employee to disrupt any school or school board function, activity on school board property, or classroom. § 877.13, Fla....

claims that he cannot be found to have violated section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2007), because his conduct

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See T.J. v. State, 867 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (stating even a student with special needs may violate section 877.13, Florida Statutes, if he disrupts an educational institution’s functions by shouting, yelling, and refusing to calm down when so instructed by school personnel and a school security officer)....

...to remove the charge for attorney’s fees and for restitution from the order of disposition, on the basis that neither charge had been orally pronounced in court. The trial court summarily denied the motion. This case involves the interpretation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) It is unlawful for any person: (a) knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state....