K.M.T., 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.
K.M.T., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated battery (reduced from lewd or lascivious charges) and committed to a level six residential program. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make specific written findings required by statute to justify deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended level two placement.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the detective's testimony, which was relevant and material to the disposition hearing. However, the court violated Florida Statutes section 39.052(4)(e) by failing to make specific written findings explaining why it disregarded the department's recommendation and imposed a more restrictive placement level.
[1] A trial court may receive any information that is relevant and material in a juvenile disposition hearing.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to make specific findings to support its dispositional rulings in a juvenile delinquency case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 failed to comply with statutory requirements that it make specific findings to support its dispositions”
Establishes the primary basis for reversal—the statutory mandate for written findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M.T. was charged with lewd or lascivious assault and lewd or lascivious acts in the presence of a child but pleaded no contest to the reduced charge…
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 Restrictiveness Level cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
K.M.T., a juvenile, was charged with committing a lewd or lascivious assault and with committing a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of a child. He pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of aggravated battery. After taking evidence, the trial court adjudicated him delinquent and committed him to a restrictiveness level six residential program. We reverse the delinquency adjudication and the commitment because the trial court failed to make findings in support of its rulings, as required by statute.
At the disposition hearing the trial court received a predisposition report in which the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended that K.M.T. be placed in a restrictiveness level two program and receive sexual therapy. Detective Beth Brown of the Collier County Sheriffs Office testified regarding her experience investigating sex offenses, and she expressed her opinion that K.M.T. should be committed to a level six or level eight program with sex offender counseling. K.M.T. contends that the detective’s statements were irrelevant and prejudicial, and that the trial court should have excluded them.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entertaining the detective’s testimony.
The trial court may receive any information that is relevant and material in a disposition hearing. Fla. R. Juv. Pro. 8.115.
Nevertheless, we must reverse and remand because the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements that it make specific findings to support its dispositions.
Under section 39.052(4)(e)l., Florida Statutes (1995), if the court finds that adjudication and commitment are appropriate, it must specify its reasons in writing or on the record of the hearing. J.R.C. v. State, 696 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); M.S.M. v. State, 639 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Further, section 39.052(4)(e)3. permits the court to commit the child at a restrietiveness level different than that recommended by the department only if the court states “the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrietiveness level recommended by the department.” Here, the court failed to make the requisite findings in writing.1 The transcript merely reflects the court’s statement that “based on the nature of the charge,” it ordered a level six program.
We conclude that this statement alone did not satisfy the requirements of the statute. For these reasons, we reverse KM.T.’s adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the department, and we remand the case for a new disposition hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. . In fact, the commitment order signed by the court incorrectly stated that K.M.T.’s commitment to a level six program was pursuant to the department’s recommendation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.J.V. v. State, 842 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…itself. Clearly this was a serious offense; A.J.V. attacked his mother’s former boyfriend with a baseball bat. But we have held that the “nature of the charge” is not a sufficient reason to depart from the D.J.J.’s recommendation. K. M. T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also C.C.B., 828 So. 2d at 431 (holding that the court’s decision to disregard the D.J.J.’s recommendation based on the nature of the charge was insufficient); cf. K.N.M. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (r…
-
C.C.B. v. State, 828 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…So. 2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Moreover, the trial court’s decision to depart from the DJJ’s recommended restrie-tivehess level based upon the nature of the charge will not satisfy the requirements that the court must meet. K.M.T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We find the trial court’s reasoning in departing from the DJJ’s recommendation in the instant case to be very similar to the court’s reasoning in A.G. In A.G., the appellant pled no contest to two counts of possession of c…
-
Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…tiveness level recommended by the department. Any party may appeal the court’s findings resulting in a modified level of restrictiveness pursuant to this subparagraph. § 39.052(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996) (emphasis supplied). In K.M.T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), that court held the judge could not rely on “the nature of the charge” to justify elevating the commitment level from level 2 to level 6. In the instant case, the judge’s comments about punishment for such “an outrageous deed” re…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Railton v. Robbie William Railton, 639 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Trammell v. Cir. Court of the Tenth Jud. Cir., 696 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Pelham v. State, 696 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)