A.H., 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 affirmed the adjudication of delinquency but reversed the disposition order.
A juvenile was charged with robbery and adjudicated delinquent. The trial court committed the juvenile to a facility not recommended by HRS and failed…
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
A.H. 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 a petition for delinquency charging A.H. with robbery in violation of section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). The trial court adjudicated A.H. delinquent and committed him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. At the commitment hearing the trial court stated that it was going to place A.H. at a facility that was not recommended by HRS. The commitment order contains no directions regarding the facility at which A.H. is to be placed.
The provisions of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985) are mandatory. They require the trial court to rank in the commitment order the options for placement recommended by HRS in order of the court’s preference. The court may not recommend its own options for placement. T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). On remand the trial court should rank in the commitment order the options presented by HRS.
Affirmed in part and remanded with directions consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…n in selecting and ranking three placement options which were not recommended by H.R.S. was in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See J.S.M. v. State, 505 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.…
-
In the Interest of J.C. v. Niznik, 548 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…. be kept at a specific place. The provision of an identified treatment program is within the trial court’s statutory authority. § 39.09(3)(e), Fla.Stat. (1987). This case is unlike T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and A.H. v. State, 499 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), for here the trial court did not order that J.C. be placed in a facility not recommended by HRS. Rather, everyone agreed that J.C. needed the precise surroundings and treatment ordered by the trial court. Finally, HRS asserts th…
-
C.A.B. v. State, 510 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…court may not recommend its own options for placement of a child, even if it disagrees with those presented by HRS. See L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also W.Y. v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); A.H. v. State, 499 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); In Re Interest of K.J.M., 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). [*1121] The HRS staffs primary recommendation was to return the c…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)