A.B., A CHILD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed a juvenile's adjudication of delinquency but reversed the commitment order. The court held that while the trial court could reject the Department of Juvenile Justice's probation recommendation, it erred by ordering a commitment without first obtaining a multidisciplinary assessment and predisposition report regarding the commitment level.
Yes, the trial court erred. While the court has the discretion to reject the DJJ's probation recommendation, it must first request a multidisciplinary assessment and predisposition report from the DJJ to determine the appropriate commitment level.
[1] When a trial court rejects the Department of Juvenile Justice's probation recommendation and orders a juvenile commitment, the court must first request a multidisciplinar…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court’s rejection of the Department’s probation recommendation is not a determination of restrictiveness level and requires no special reasoning pursuant to E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)].”
Establishes that rejecting probation does not require special reasoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile, referred to as Appellant, was adjudicated delinquent. The trial court rejected the Department of Juvenile Justice's (DJJ) recommendation f…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a juvenile, appeals his commitment to non-secure detention after the trial court rejected the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation.
We find no error in the trial court rejecting the probation recommendation and adjudicating Appellant delinquent. See C.H. v. State, 322 So. 3d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The trial court’s rejection of the Department’s probation recommendation is not a determination of restrictiveness level and requires no special reasoning pursuant to E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)].”).
We conclude, however, that the trial court erred in ordering a commitment program for Appellant without first requesting a multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report from the Department as to its recommended commitment level. See K.L.L. v. State, 224 So. 3d 918, 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court, which rejected the Department’s recommendation of probation, erred in committing the appellant without first requesting a commitment level recommendation from the Department and affirming the portion of the disposition order adjudicating the appellant delinquent, but reversing the non-secure residential commitment and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings); B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928, 930–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that although the trial court, which rejected the Department’s probation recommendation and committed the appellant, did not violate the requirements set forth in E.A.R. given that the Department did not recommend a restrictiveness level, it did err in ordering a level of commitment without requesting a further multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report); A.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 700, 700–01 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (same); see also F.L.P. v. State, 292 So. 3d 791, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[T]he trial court erred by not requesting that the DJJ submit an additional [predisposition report] to determine the restrictiveness level for Appellant’s commitment. . . . Here, the PDR did not provide an alternate commitment recommendation, so the trial court did not have the benefit of a multidisciplinary assessment and DJJ recommendation to determine the appropriate level of commitment for Appellant.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the disposition order as to the adjudication of delinquency, but reverse the order as to the commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- F.L.P. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- A.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)