A.R., A CHILD, 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.
The court held that a trial court must receive and consider a recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice regarding restrictiveness level before ordering a juvenile's commitment.
A juvenile pleaded guilty to petit theft and was adjudicated delinquent. The trial judge departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommenda…
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 Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A.R., a juvenile, appeals his commitment, arguing that proper procedures were not followed in the commitment’s imposition. We reverse.
A.R. pleaded guilty to petit theft. He committed this crime on February 25, 1997,1 in Duval County, when he shoplifted candy and cigars from a Winn-Dixie store. The trial judge adjudicated A.R. delinquent, sentenced him to low-risk commitment for sixty days, and recommended a STEP camp for boys. The judge explained that he was rejecting the “community control” recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice (department) because A.R. previously stole from the same store, has disciplinary problems at school, was suspended from a school drop-out prevention program and, despite previous youth mediation, stole in the instant case “because he wanted something sweet.” A.R. objected to the judge’s departure from the department’s recommendation.
We affirm A.R.’s adjudication of delinquency without discussion. We reverse A.R.’s commitment, however, to allow the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the department as to restrictiveness level. See S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that, where the department recommends community control for a juvenile, the trial court is required to receive and consider a further restrictiveness-level recommendation before ordering the juvenile’s commitment).
We accordingly affirm A.R.’s adjudication of delinquency, reverse A.R.’s commitment, and remand for another recommendation from the department.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . AR was fifteen at the time of the instant crime.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kent, 723 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…acy 0. Kent’s sentence was based on a plea agreement with the trial court, on remand Kent must be given the opportunity to withdraw her plea. If Kent does not withdraw her plea, the trial court shall impose a guidelines sentence. See State v. Moore, 702 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Reversed and remanded for resentencing. CAMPBELL, AC.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.…
-
State v. Fender, 764 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ssentially ruled that the sentencing guidelines placed too much importance on Fender’s criminal record, and that a guidelines sentence would be excessive. Fender concedes that the trial court gave an invalid reason for departure. See State v. Moore, 702 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Because Fender relied on the trial court’s offer of a downward departure sentence in exchange for his no contest plea, the trial court may need to afford Fender the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See id. Reversed and r…
-
D. K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…Department’s non-commitment recommendation and commit a juvenile without obtaining a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department. The court held in this regard that community control is not a “restrictiveness level.” See A.R. v. State, 702 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); O.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The Second District disagrees and holds that once the juvenile court has rejected the Department’s non-commitment recommenda…
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
- In the Interest of S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)