R.G.S., 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.
A juvenile, R.G.S., appeals his commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, arguing the trial court failed to make required statutory findings and improperly imposed a general sentence of commitment rather than specific sentences for each offense. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court's adoption of the HRS predisposition report satisfied the statutory requirement for specific findings.
The trial court did not err. Although strict compliance with section 39.09(3) is mandatory, the HRS predisposition report sufficiently detailed the basis for commitment and the trial court's specific adoption of that recommendation constituted compliance with the statute.
[1] A trial court complies with a statute requiring specific findings for commitment when it adopts a predisposition report that sufficiently details the basis for its recomm…
[2] A juvenile's extensive criminal history, repeated offenses despite remorse, refusal of counseling, and commission of new law violations while on community control support…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We agree that strict compliance with the provisions of section 39.09(3) is mandatory and that failure to do so results in reversible error.”
Establishes that the statutory requirement for findings is mandatory and non-compliance is reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.G.S., a 16-year-old with an extensive criminal history, was adjudicated guilty of one count of robbery with a firearm and two counts of grand theft.…
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 Sentencing For Multiple Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, R.G.S., a juvenile, contends the trial court erred in committing him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) without making proper findings of fact in compliance with section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). He also contends the trial court erred in imposing a general sentence of commitment against him for three separate offenses, rather than imposing a specific sentence for each offense. While we find no merit in either contention and affirm, we shall address the issue regarding compliance with section 39.09(3)(e).
R.G.S. has an extensive history of serious crime for his brief sixteen years. In the instant case, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of robbery with a firearm in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1989), and two counts of grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1990). At the time he committed these offenses, he was a runaway and was thus in violation of. community control imposed for other crimes he had previously committed.
At R.G.S.’s disposition hearing, HRS submitted a predisposition report. The report detailed R.G.S.’s vast criminal history of offenses such as burglary, trespassing, strong armed robbery, and grand theft auto. In recommending that R.G.S. be committed to the custody of HRS, the report stated:
[RGS] expresses remorse but continues to repeat [the] same type of offenses [sic]. His criminal record shows an increasing, progressive amount of deliberation and violence.
[RGS] has refused to avail himself to various counseling that has been offered on an outpatient basis throughout the community. [RGS] has been on Community Control under a suspended commitment during which time he has committed three new law violations for which he has been adjudicated, plus numerous others which the State Attorney’s Office has Nolle Prossed.
[RGS] does not learn from his mistakes, has not benefitted from outpatient counseling, and presents himself as a danger to the community.
In light of the information presented within this report, it is the recommendation of this counselor that said child be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Due to the fact that said child is currently in custody at the Lee County Jail for felony charges, it is the further recommendation of this counsel-or that said commitment be held in abeyance until said child’s release from the Lee County Jail. When and if the com mitment goes into effect, the level should be High.
Accepting the above recommendation, the trial court ordered R.G.S. committed to the custody of HRS for an indeterminate period of time.
Section 39.09(3)(e) provides that once it is determined that a child should be committed, that “determination shall include a specific finding on reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department.” It is R.G.S.’s contention that the trial court failed to make such a finding.
We agree that strict compliance with the provisions of section 39.09(3) is mandatory and that failure to do so results in reversible error. See T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Since, however, HRS sufficiently detailed the basis of its recommendation and the trial court specifically adopted that recommendation, we find such constitutes compliance with the statute.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
RYDER, A.C.J., and ALVAREZ, F. DENNIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.C. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…re, the skill and sophistication in which the crime was committed, the effort of concealment by appellant, and his immaturity. We conclude that this satisfies the requirements of section 39.052(4)(e)(3), Florida Statutes (1995). See R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992); I.H. v. State, 584 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The next issue regards sentencing. The order in this case states that appellant is sentenced to commitment not to exceed 364 days followed by…
-
M.H. v. State, 621 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…redisposition report before the adjudication and commitment. These disposition procedures are required by subsections 39.052(3)(a) and (e)1, Florida Statutes, (1991), and failure to strictly comply with them is reversible error. See R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992). Although the order notes that the appellant waived the predisposition report, the record does not reflect the waiver. Therefore if the appellant knowingly and intelligently waives the predispo…
-
J.E.W. v. State, 672 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…sposition without predisposition report); M.H. v. State, 621 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding trial court erred by failing to express reasons for adjudication and commitment and by failing to consider a predisposition report); R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding that where trial court failed to make separate findings to adjudicate and commit child, court’s adoption of detailed department recommendation constitutes compliance), review denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992); T.S.J. v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)