STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
W. H., A JUVENILE, 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 State of Florida appealed a juvenile court's downward departure from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended commitment restrictiveness level for a juvenile who pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of armed robbery. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the departure from the Department's recommendation was unsupported by evidence and that the trial judge's denial of the state's disqualification motion was error.
The court held that the downward departure constituted reversible error because no evidence supported the court's stated reasons for the departure. The court also held that the state's motion to disqualify was facially sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded belief that it could not receive a fair hearing and should have been granted.
[1] A downward departure from a recommended commitment restrictiveness level is reversible error when the evidence does not support the reasons stated by the court for the de…
[2] A juvenile court's finding that crimes are not serious enough to justify a recommended restrictive disposition must be supported by evidence.
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“A review of the record shows that the evidence in this case does not support the reasons orally stated by the court for its downward departure from the restrietiveness level recommended by the Department.”
Establishes that the trial court failed to provide evidentiary support for its departure from the Department's recommendation, which constitutes 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 intelligenceW.H., a juvenile, entered a nolo contendere plea to two counts of armed robbery. The Department of Juvenile Justice recommended a specific commitment …
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.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals the juvenile court’s disposition order which constituted a downward departure from the commitment restrietiveness level recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice [Department] following W.H.’s nolo contendere plea to two counts of armed robbery. The state also appeals the juvenile court judge’s denial of its motion to disqualify the judge. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal under section 39.052(4)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1995).
A review of the record shows that the evidence in this case does not support the reasons orally stated by the court for its downward departure from the restrietiveness level recommended by the Department. No evidence was presented to support the court’s finding that the crimes committed by the juvenile were not serious enough to justify the recommended restrictive disposition or that the juvenile did not need such restriction in order to be rehabilitated. Under these circumstances, the departure from the Department’s recommendation constitutes reversible error. See J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also R.D.S. v. State, 696 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We further find that under the circumstances, the state’s motion to disqualify the presiding judge was facially sufficient to show a well-founded belief that it could not receive a fair hearing and, thus, should have been granted. See Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1978); Hayes v. State, 686 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Levine v. State, 650 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Therefore, the disposition hearing on remand should be held before a different judge of the juvenile court.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Levine v. State, 650 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Hayes v. State, 686 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- R.D.S. v. State, 696 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)