C.B., 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.
C.B., a juvenile delinquent, challenged his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice, arguing the trial court failed to follow statutory requirements for disposition hearings. The Florida court reversed and remanded because the trial court did not properly consider a predisposition report, did not apply required statutory criteria, and improperly suspended the juvenile's driver's license beyond the authorized term.
The trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements: it did not properly consider the required predisposition report, did not apply the criteria in section 39.052(4)(d), and lacked authority to suspend the driver's license for eighteen months when the statute limited suspension to six months. Strict compliance with statutory disposition hearing requirements is mandatory.
[1] Disposition hearings require strict compliance with statutory requirements.
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to consider a predisposition report as mandated by statute.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing disposition orders in juvenile delinquency cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.B. was adjudicated delinquent. At the disposition hearing, the trial court committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice and suspended his dri…
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 Statutory Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
C.B. challenges the order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Because the trial court failed to follow the requirements of sections 39.052(4) and 322.056, Florida Statutes (1995), we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing.
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings. See M.H. v. State, 621 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). C.B. argues that the record does not show that the trial court considered a predisposition report as required by section 39.052(4)(a). The State argues that the trial court was in partial compliance with this section because the court adopted the recommendations of the predisposition report that were referenced at the disposition hearing. Although provided an opportunity to supplement the record with documentation to support this argument, the State failed to do so. Because the record on appeal does not contain the predisposition report nor did the trial court reference the report at the disposition hearing or in the disposition order, we are required to reverse. The trial court also erred by not considering the criteria set forth in section 39.052(4)(d) and by entering a single disposition order. C.B. argues that, in addition to not complying with section '39.052(4), the trial court lacked the authority to suspend his driver’s license for a period of eighteen months. The record does not support a suspension for any longer than six months. See § 322.056, Fla. Stat. (1995). Additionally, the trial court itself may not suspend a driver’s license and must direct the' Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to suspend any driving privileges. See Blair v. State, 554 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing. At the hearing, the court may reimpose the adjudication and commitment if it strictly follows the provisions of section 39.052(4) and also may direct the Department to suspend C.B.’s driving privileges pursuant to section 322.056.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and YOUNG, ROBERT A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.O. v. State, 765 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…te for the child.... The court shall consider the department’s recommendation in making its commitment decision. § 985.23(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied). The requirements of this statute must be strictly adhered to. See C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”) (citations omitted); see also A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that “[i]f the trial court fails to ma…
-
F.W. v. State, 777 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ssion of marijuana and cocaine. Our independent review of the record reveals that the trial court failed to strictly comply with the numerous requirements of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (1997), regarding disposition hearings. See C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”). The trial court announced its disposition at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing after asking the Department of Juvenile Jus…
-
K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…t, its reasons for such must be in writing or on the record. See K.M.T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Here, the trial court failed to make specific findings to support its determination on the record or in writing. See C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that strict compliance with statutory requirements is mandatoiy in disposition hearings). In addition, the trial court disregarded the sentence recommended by the department without providing its reasons. See § 39.052(4)(…
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
- R.G.S. v. State, 597 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- M.H. v. State, 621 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Blair v. State, 554 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)