Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that a Miami middle school student's threatening online comments ⁠— left in the wake of the 2018 Parkland school shooting– constituted a violation of state law.

The appellate court's opinion affirmed lower court orders denying a Miami Lakes Middle School student's motions to dismiss the case against him in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The juvenile, referred to as O.P-G. in the Third DCA's ruling, had been found guilty of violating section 877.13 of the Florida Statutes. The law assigns a second-degree misdemeanor to anyone found to have knowingly disrupted educational institutions or school functions.

O.P-G was prosecuted for allegedly posting violent remarks on a YouTube video depicting the aftermath of the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. According to the Third DCA, the student posted under the pseudonym 'Ninja Roos' and left a comment that purported to threaten gun violence against his own school just two days after the Parkland attack.

As detailed in the opinion, the comment said "I[']m going to shoot my school in [F]lorida[.] [I']m only 13[.] I got bull[ied] and [I']m getting my revenge with my guns[.] [T]he school is [M]iami [L]akes [M]iddle [S]chool."

Law enforcement discovered the comment and subsequently determined the student's identity. After being alerted to the possible threat, Miami Lakes Middle School administration directed students to enter the building through a single entry point as well as submit their backpacks to pat downs.

Read the opinion:

The Third DCA noted "classes did not commence in a timely manner" as a side effect of the additional security measures.

After being removed from class and brought before school officials, O.P-G purportedly drew the connection between "postings [he] placed on the internet" and the presence of law enforcement at his school. The appellate panel said the student confessed to writing the online post and was charged with disrupting school functions.

The student filed a motion for dismissal during the trial proceedings and was summarily denied. Although the lower court opted to withhold adjudication, O.P-G. was found guilty and subjected to a period of supervision.

The motion for involuntary dismissal filed by O.P-G. after the trial was premised on alleged discovery violations committed by the prosecution.

"Subsequent to trial, O.P-G. submitted a public records request to the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department which yielded a five-page supplement to a truncated offense incident report previously disclosed to the defense in discovery," the opinion said. "Although the report did not reflect O.P-G.'s statement to the assistant principal, it contained other inculpatory evidence, including additional online threats purportedly penned by O.P-G. On the basis of the incomplete report, O.P-G. again sought involuntary dismissal."

O.P-G appealed to the Third DCA after his second motion to dismiss was denied. His appeal argued discovery violations had occurred and his prosecution under Florida Statute Section 877.13 was overbroad, contending the law "solely proscribes on-campus actions," according to the appellate court.

The Third DCA concluded there was no error in the case's discovery proceedings and rejected O.P-G's interpretation of the school disruption statute.

"Although 'section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities 'on school board property,' it does not, by its express terms, insulate conduct that occurs off-campus," the opinion said, adding the law "penalizes behavior, regardless of where initiated," that impedes school function.

The appeals court deployed graphic imagery while rebuffing O.P-G's interpretation of state law.

"For example, an individual could launch an incendiary device from his window into an adjacent school yard, during school hours while students were outside in physical education class," the opinion said. "Despite ensuing panic, untold injuries, and an emergency services response, because the perpetrator did not throw the missile while standing on school grounds, he could not be deemed to have disrupted a school function. … Accordingly, we decline to undermine the legislative intent by importing an unpenned element into the statute."

O.P-G received representation from the Public Defender for Miami-Dade County. Richard M. De Maria, an executive administrator with the public defender's office, said it had no comment on the appellate court's ruling.

Assistant Attorney General David Llanes did not respond to press inquiries by deadline.

Related stories: