R.L.W., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication and commitment at a higher restrictiveness level than recommended, holding that trial courts need only state reasons orally on the record, not in writing, when increasing the restrictiveness level above the Department's recommendation.
A trial court may increase a juvenile's commitment restrictiveness level above the Department's recommendation if it states reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence why it is disregarding the Department's assessment, and such reasons may be stated orally rather than in writing.
[1] When a trial court increases a juvenile's commitment restrictiveness level above the Department's recommendation, the court must state reasons on the record establishing…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.”
Statutory requirement under section 39.052(4)(e)3 for trial court action when increasing restrictiveness level
R.L.W. was adjudicated delinquent and the Department recommended commitment at restrictiveness level six, but the trial court committed him at level e…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
R.L.W. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Juvenile Justice Department at a restrictiveness level of eight. R.L.W. contends that the Department recommended commitment restrictiveness level six and the trial court erred when it increased the restrictiveness level without complying with section 39.052(4)(e), Florida Statutes. We affirm.
Section 39.052(4)(e)3 reads:
The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level. The court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.
(Emphasis supplied). The trial court reviewed for the record the prior criminal activity of R.L.W. and the facts of R.L.W.’s current case. R.L.W. states that the reasons for disregarding the recommendation of the Department should be in writing. We disagree. The reasons may be orally announced as long as they are preserved for appellate review. D.A.D. v. State, 697 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See R.L.W. v. State, 708 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). W. SHARP, HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
-
C.M.L. v. State, 895 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…to reconsider the placement. [*500] A trial court can disregard the recommendation of the DJJ, but the court must articulate its reasoning in writing or orally, and its decision must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. R.L.W. v. State, 708 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes, provides: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level. The courf shall state for…
-
S.L.J. v. State, 717 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See R.L.W. v. State, 708 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); D.A.D. v. State, 697 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). W. SHARP, GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- M.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hart v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 697 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)