A.P., 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.
A.P., a juvenile, appealed his disposition order for trespass and resisting a law enforcement officer. The court vacated the order due to the trial court's failure to specify reasons for adjudication and disposition, and improper use of a single disposition order for multiple charges.
The trial court erred by failing to set forth reasons for adjudication and disposition as mandated by statute, and by using a single disposition order for both charges instead of separate orders. However, the trial court did not err in failing to obtain another DJJ recommendation after rejecting the initial community control recommendation.
[1] A court must specify reasons for adjudication and disposition when required by statute.
[2] A separate disposition order must be used for each offense when multiple convictions form the basis for adjudication of delinquency.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 erred when it did not set forth its reasons for the adjudication and disposition, although, the statute, mandates compliance.”
Establishes that the trial court violated Florida statutory requirements by failing to specify reasons for its disposition order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.P. was charged with trespass and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. He was on community control at the time of the alleged delinq…
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 Disposition Order cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
A.P., a child, appeals his order of disposition, entered after he was charged with trespass and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. He contends that the court erred in failing to specify reasons for the adjudication and commitment, in failing to seek a commitment level recommendation from the Department of' Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) after the court rejected the department’s initial recommendation of community control, and in using a single disposition order for both charges. We agree that the court erred and vacate the order of disposition.
The court erred when it did not set forth its reasons for the adjudication and disposition, although, the statute, mandates compliance. See § 39.052(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp 1996); D.D.M. v. State, 662 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The court also erred when it disposed of the two charges in a single order of commitment. This court has held that a separate order must be used for each offense where multiple convictions form the basis for adjudication of delinquency. G.R.A. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The trial court did not err, however, in failing to obtain another disposition recommendation after it rejected the recommendation of community control. A.P. was on community control when he committed the delinquent act in this case. He previously had been placed on community control after the court suspended a level 6 commitment. The court determined that since this crime occurred only one week after the prior adjudication, adoption of the treatment plan recommended by DJJ along with commitment to a level 6 was in the best interest of A.P. -Once the recommendation from the DJJ is rejected, the court does not need another recommendation. State v. E.D.P., No. 92345 (Fla. Oct. 8, 1998); J.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1144, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1956 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug.21,1998).
VACATED and REMANDED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.S.B. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…tent and substantial evidence, it failed to specify the reasons, either oral or written, for imposing the harsher sentence. Accordingly, we must set aside the order of disposition. See V.T. v. State, 782 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); A.P. v. State, 718 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We remand to the trial court to consider the Department’s recommendations and if the court chooses to disregard those recommendations, we direct the court to prepare a written order setting forth findings justifying the deviat…
-
A.M. v. State, 792 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…based. We [*640] agree. Reversible error occurs when the trial court fails to set forth specific written findings regarding its reasons to adjudicate and commit a juvenile. See V.T. v. State, 782 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also A.P.v. State, 718 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Although the trial court set forth oral findings of fact on the record which were sufficient to support the delinquency adjudication, remand is necessary so the trial court can enter a written order setting forth those findings.…
Authorities Cited
- G.R.A. v. State, 688 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- D.D.M. v. State, 662 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- J.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)