K.Y.L. AND N.L., CHILDREN, APPELLANTS,
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 commitment orders must be vacated because the trial judge failed to comply with statutory requirements for disposition following a finding of delinquency.
Juvenile appellants were found to have committed delinquent acts, and the trial judge committed them to residential programs. The judge did not make s…
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.
ALLEN, Judge.
The juvenile appellants challenge their commitments to the Department of Juvenile Justice (the department). Because the trial judge did not comply with the requirements of section 39.052(4), Florida Statutes, we vacate the commitment orders.
Following an adjudicatory hearing, the trial judge found that K.Y.L. and N.L. had committed delinquent acts. Predisposition reports filed by the department recommended community control for both children, but the trial judge elected to commit both children to residential programs.
Section 39.052(4), Florida Statutes (1995), delineates the procedures for disposition following a finding of delinquency. Specifically, section 39.052(4)(e)l requires the judge to make in writing or on the record a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to commit the child to the department. The judge did not satisfy this requirement as to N.L. because the judge gave no specific reason for his commitment decision.
The judge gave a reason for his decision to commit K.Y.L., saying that he was committing her because she showed “no contrition ... no acknowledgement of wrongdoing.” But the judge erred in relying on this reason because lack of contrition or remorse is a constitutionally impermissible consideration in imposing sentence. See AS. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). See also Holton v. State, 573 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960, 111 S.Ct. 2275, 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The trial judge also erred in failing to secure the recommendation specified by section 39.052(4)(e)2 prior to making his commitment decision. See S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Accordingly, the commitment orders are vacated and the case is remanded.
MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Whitmore v. State, 27 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ence. Instead, we disagreed with St. Val’s position that a sentencing judge could never, under any circumstances, consider a defendant's lack of contrition or remorse in imposing sentence. For that reason, we certified conflict with K.Y.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), disapproved on other grounds, State v. J.P.C., 731 So. 2d 1255, 1256, n. 1 (Fla.1999) (holding that lack of contrition or remorse is a constitutionally impermissible consideration in imposing sentence). The Florida Supreme…
-
Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…undance of caution” in reversing a sentence based on comments of the trial court at sentencing in Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). A defendant may not be additionally punished for failing to show remorse. K.Y.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), nor for continuing to claim innocence. A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In this case it appears that the defendant was being punished for maintaining his innocence in the face of the court’s inquiry a…
-
Blanchard ST. VAL v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…taining his innocence.” Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In dicta, we indicated that a defendant “may not be additionally punished for failing to show remorse.” Id. As authority for that proposition, we cited K.Y.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). KY.L. stated that “lack of contrition or remorse is a constitutionally impermissible consideration in imposing sentence.” As authority for this statement, K.Y.L. cited Holton and A.S. K.Y.L., 685 So. 2d at 1381. K.Y.L. mis…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 573 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1990)
- Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- In the Interest of S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Hernandez v. Texas, 500 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1991)
- Spencer v. Georgia, 500 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1991)