T.D., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court cannot insert its own placement option when ranking facilities for a delinquent youth and that restitution cannot be ordered if the youth is committed to HRS custody rather than a community control program.
A defendant was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The trial court ran…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the disposition ordered by the trial court. We affirm the adjudication, but reverse the disposition and remand.
The state filed six petitions for delinquency, charging defendant with various theft offenses. The trial court adjudicated defendant delinquent and committed him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The trial court’s written order contained a ranking of three facilities where the trial court recommended that defendant be placed. The facility ranked first by the court was not one of the facilities recommended by HRS in its predisposition report.
Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), provides, “The court shall rank the options presented by [HRS] in order of the preference of the court.” This statute is mandatory and does not permit the trial court to insert its own placement option. See T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). On remand, the trial court should rank the options presented by HRS.
As another point on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to follow certain requirements of section 39.-09(3)(c). We agree. On remand, the trial court should comply with that section.
A third point on appeal is that the trial court ordered defendant to make restitution. According to W.P.J. v. State, 443 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), restitution may be imposed on a juvenile only if he has been placed in a community control program. Accordingly, the trial court erred in imposing restitution in this case because defendant was committed to the custody of HRS and was not placed in a community control program.
We find no merit to the remaining points on appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
RYDER, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Interest of L.B. v. Alberta McHELLEN, 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…st of K.A.B., 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The lower court’s actions in recommending placement options for the minors in this case were in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); W.Y. v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This case is reversed and remanded for entry of an order in compliance…
-
J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…rank the options presented by the department in order of the preference of the court. Since the trial court failed to observe the mandatory requirements of section 39.- [*584] 09(3)(e), we remand for compliance with this statute. See T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but we reverse the court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(3)(e). CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); A.H. v. State, 499 So. 2d 27 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Margain, 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In re Interest of L.B., 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); R.S. v. State, 414 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); W.Y v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also In re Interes…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- L. J. N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- W.P.J. v. State, 443 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- A.G.H. v. State, 443 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)