K.R., A CHILD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 not allowing the appellant and his mother to comment on disposition before it was announced, but that the trial court did provide sufficient findings for adjudication and commitment.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for robbery and committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The trial court did not allow …
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his adjudication of delinquency for robbery1 and commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. We affirm the trial court’s order of adjudication but reverse the trial court’s order of commitment and remand this matter for a proper dispositional hear ing pursuant to section 39.09(3)(c) of the Florida Statutes (1989).
Section 39.09(3)(c)4 provides that, before the trial court determines and announces the disposition to be imposed, the court shall give all parties at the hearing an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition and any proposed rehabilitation plan. Those parties include, if present, the child’s parents and counsel. The trial court refused to allow the appellant and his mother to address the court before it determined and announced its disposition in this matter. This refusal constituted error. T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
However, we reject appellant’s claim that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.09(3)(e). Section 39.09(3)(e) requires the trial court to include specific findings or reasons for the decision to adjudicate and commit a child to the Department. Here, the trial court stated that the commitment was required because “this is a violent offense.” This statement complies with the statute.
The state filed a cross-appeal in this matter challenging an evidentiary ruling issued by the trial court. Because we affirm the trial court’s order of adjudication, review of this issue is unnecessary.
Adjudication AFFIRMED; commitment REVERSED; cause REMANDED.
COBB, COWART and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Section 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…be affirmed. Two districts have decided cases which assume, without discussion, that the choice of disposition can be appealed. See P.D.W. v. State, 621 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); M.H. v. State, 621 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); K.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); I.H. v. State, 584 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Those cases do not discuss the question whether paragraph 39.052(3)(k) precludes review of the trial court’s choice of dispos…
-
B.R. v. State, 902 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…shall include the parents, legal custodians, or guardians of the child.... ” This Court has repeatedly held that a trial court’s failure to allow a child’s parents to testify at a disposition hearing constitutes reversible error. See K.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); T.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see also A.P. v. State, 666 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition to preventing B.R.’s mother from speaking at disposition, the trial court erred by making statemen…
-
D.A.D. v. State, 697 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…and committing her to a level six facility so that she could receive the kind of therapy and rehabilitation she needed for her mental health and substance abuse problems. The trial court thus satisfied the mandate of the statute. See K.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (trial court’s statement in delinquency proceeding that commitment was required because robbery is a violent offense complied with statute requiring court to include specific findings and reasons for decision to adjudicate delinq…
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.H. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)