We accept the concession of error and reverse, because the trial court erred by calculating the recapture window as a single fifteen-day period. See State v. S.A., 133 So.3d 506, 509 (Fla.2014). J.C. was arrested on April 26, 2013, and was later charged by petition for delinquency with disruption of a school function.

New "child friendly" form 8.953 (Waiver of Rights) was proposed to ensure that juveniles understand the charges against them and the potential consequences of pleading nolo contendere or guilty. Consistent with our limiting juvenile rule 8.080(c)(10) to "deportation consequences," we have changed item 6(b) "immigration issues" in the new form to "deportation issues." Next, we decline to adopt, at this time, the proposed amendments to rule 8.090(m)(3) that would establish the single 15-day speedy-trial recapture window suggested by Justice Pariente in her concurring opinion in State v. S.A. , 133 So.3d 506, 509-10 (Fla. 2014) (Pariente J., concurring). Instead, we direct the JCR Committee to work with the CrimPR Committee to coordinate amendments to the juvenile and criminal speedy-trial rules, in order to ensure continued consistency in the time frames in those rules.

Where a juvenile files a motion for discharge, two deadlines result. See, e.g., State v. S.A., 133 So. 3d 506, 509 (Fla. 2014). In particular, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.090(m)(3) provides:

In the meantime, on June 14, Wilson filed a motion for a thirty-day continuance to be charged to the State. State v. S.A., 133 So.3d 506, 507 (Fla.2014) (holding that the recapture window is calculated as two separate five- and ten-day time periods).After the June 17 hearing, with days remaining in the recapture window, the court granted Wilson's motion, continuing the case to an unspecified date beyond the recapture window, and charged the continuance to the State.