L.R.J., 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 the trial judge's authority to reject a predisposition recommendation without seeking an alternative recommendation is questionable, and the applicability of a statute to juvenile proceedings is uncertain.
[1] A trial court may reject a Department of Juvenile Justice's community control recommendation after a disposition hearing, based on specific reasons, without remanding the…
[2] The statutory requirement for multiple recommendations from the Department of Juvenile Justice does not apply when a disposition changes from community control to commitm…
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 intelligenceA juvenile charged with burglary pled guilty to petit theft, and the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended community control. The trial court rej…
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 Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was charged with burglary. He pled guilty to the lesser offense of petit theft, and the Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a predisposition report recommending community control. The trial court rejected this recommendation, stating the reasons therefor,1 and instead imposed a low-risk commitment. The trial court did not seek another recommendation from the Department prior to imposing commitment, therefore, the question arises as to whether the judgment below can be affirmed in view of O.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); K.Y.L. and N.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); and S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). These cases hold that community control is not a “restrictiveness level” and that section 39.052(4)(e)3, Florida Statutes, does not apply where the change is from community control to commitment. The State argues that this two-recommendation process is redundant and wasteful of judicial resources.
The State further argues that the error, if any, has not been preserved. This preservation issue is presently pending on certified question before the Florida Supreme Court. J.M.J. v. State, 22 Fla. L., Weekly D1673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), reh’g granted, 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1997). We therefore certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court as questions of great public importance:
1. DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?
2. DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORI- ' DA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?
Accordingly, we must reverse and remand, but do so with certification of the foregoing questions as being of great public importance.
JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s reasons.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.P.C., 731 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1999)…re inconsistent with E.D.P. This Court disapproved J.P.M. v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), on the same basis. D.L.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1998). We quashed L.R.J. v. State, 706 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), for the same reason. State v. L.R.J., 720 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1998).…
-
State v. E.D.P., 724 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1998)…ol is not a 'restrictiveness level’ and that section 39.052(4)(e)3, Florida Statutes [authorizing the trial court to deviate from the DJJ’s recommended restrictiveness level], does not apply where the change is from community control to commitment.” 706 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see. also, S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ("We reverse and remand because section 39.052(4)(e)2., Florida Statutes, unequivocally requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the Depart…1 / 2
-
J.P.C. v. State, 712 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…r the trial court was required to obtain a second recommendation from the Department as to the appropriate restrietiveness level, after rejecting the Department’s recommendation of community control. This same issue was addressed in L.R.J. v. State, 706 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In L.R.J., as in this case, the Department prepared a PDR recommending community control. The trial court rejected the recommendation, and imposed a low-risk commitment without seeking a second recommendation from the Department…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- O.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)