A.T., 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 the trial court erred by selecting a commitment placement option not presented by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
A juvenile appealed an order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to HRS. The trial court, at the disposition hearing, ranked a placement op…
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 Disposition Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
A.T. appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). While A.T. raises two points on appeal, we find merit in only one.
A.T. argues that the trial court erred in failing to follow the dictates of section 39.-09(3), Florida Statutes (1985), when it committed him to HRS. At A.T.’s disposition hearing, HRS presented the trial court with three options for A.T.’s placement. The trial judge, however, ranked as his first choice for A.T.’s commitment an option not presented by HRS.
The trial court is restricted to ranking the options provided by HRS and cannot go outside them to insert its own placement option. T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Since the trial court failed to observe the mandatory requirements of section 39.09(3)(e), we remand for compliance with this statute. J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). On remand, the trial court must then comply with the additional provisions set forth in section 39.09(3).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(3).
CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. The Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 544 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…a final order substituting the court’s placement alternatives for H.R.S. recommendations, we would be compelled to reverse. See C.A.B. v. State, 510 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); F.D.R v. State, 510 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); A.T. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Similarly, mandamus has been held to be appropriately granted upon petition by H.R.…
-
In the Interest of C.S., 573 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…actually substituted his own choice of pro [*169] gram in favor of one of the three options presented by HRS. This he cannot do as he should have already known from M.M. v. Korda, in which he was, likewise, the trial judge. See also, A.T. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). All other points on appeal are affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)