A.K., 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 reversed a delinquency disposition imposing Level 8 residential confinement because the trial court failed to state reasons on the record for disregarding the Department's predisposition report recommendation of community control without commitment.
When a trial court disregards the Department's placement and restrictiveness level recommendations in a predisposition report, it must state its reasons on the record or the disposition must be reversed.
[1] When a trial court imposes a disposition in a juvenile delinquency case that differs from the Department's placement and restrictiveness level recommendations in the pred…
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 intelligenceA juvenile entered a plea of nolo contendere to attempted lewd assault. The predisposition report recommended community control for up to three years …
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 Predisposition Report cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
Appellant appeals from an adjudication of delinquency ordering a Level 8 residential confinement, suspended in lieu of successful completion of sexual offender treatment as a condition of a five year term of community control. Appellant had entered a plea of nolo contendere to a reduced charge of attempted lewd assault.
The predisposition report (PDR) recommended community control for up to three years with any commitment suspended pending compliance with the terms of the proposed treatment plan, which included participation m an outpatient juvenile sexual offender treatment program. No level of commitment was included in the report. Section 39.052(4)(e)2, 3, Fla. Stat. (1996) requires the court to consider the Department’s placement and restrictiveness level, and if the court disregards them, the court must state its reasons on the record. No reasons were stated here for disregarding the Department’s recommendations, so we must set aside the Order of Disposition. See J.E.W. v. State, 672 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See also, J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The Order of Disposition is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. E.D.P., 724 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1998)…commendation and it is not clear whether the report in this case was the initial predisposition report or the second recommendation under section 39.052(4)(e)2. In a similar vein, J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and A.K. v. State, 713 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), both hold that the trial court can disregard the DJJ’s predisposition recommendation and order commitment as long as the court provides reasons supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In J.M., HRS filed a predisposition wi…
-
C.M.K. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court’s disposition order and remanding because the trial court disregarded the Department’s recommended sentence without providing its reasons for [*1236] such); A.K. v. State, 713 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court’s disposition order and remanding for further proceedings because the trial court failed to state any reasons for disregarding the Department’s recommended disposition). REVERSED and REMANDED fo…
-
E.S.B. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…s to disregard those recommendations, we direct the court to prepare a written order setting forth findings justifying the deviations in accordance with section 985.2S(3)(c). See P.R. v. State, 782 So. 2d 911, 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); A.K. v. State, 713 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED. PETERSON, PLEUS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- J.E.W. v. State, 672 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)