D.L.B., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge may reject a Department of Juvenile Justice's community control recommendation in a delinquency disposition hearing and impose a higher level of commitment without remanding the case for an alternative departmental recommendation, provided the judge states reasons for the deviation on the record.
Yes. The trial judge has the authority to reject the Department's recommendation and impose a higher level of commitment without requesting a second recommendation from the Department, provided the judge states reasons for the deviation on the record as required by statute.
[1] A trial court may reject a Department of Juvenile Justice's community control recommendation without remanding the case to the Department for an alternative recommendatio…
[2] A trial court has the authority to impose a disposition other than the one recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice after a disposition hearing.
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 intelligence“We do not believe the statute requires the court, once it has already rejected the Department's non-commitment recommendation, to then ask the Department for a second recommendation.”
The district court's rationale that no remand is required after judicial rejection of the department's recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.L.B. was found delinquent under the affray statute. The Department of Juvenile Justice recommended community control. The trial court rejected this …
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 Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review D.L.B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), based on conflict with E.D.P. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D348, — So. 2d -, 1998 WL 25483 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.27, 1998), and other cases.1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve D.L.B.
D.L.B. was found to be delinquent under the affray statute2 and the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended community control. The trial court rejected the department’s recommendation and imposed a level-six restrictiveness commitment without remanding the case to the department for an alternative recommendation. The district court stated:
We do not believe the statute requires the court, once it has already rejected the Department’s non-commitment recommendation, to then ask the Department for a second recommendation. A request for a second recommendation would seem particularly unnecessary in view of section 39.052(4)(e)3., Florida Statutes (1995), the next paragraph of the statute, which allows the court to reject the Department’s restrictions level recommendation provided the court state for the record the reasons for its deviation from the Department’s recommendation. For these reasons we find ourselves in conflict with the First District in finding no error in the court’s refusal to request a second recommendation from the Department.
D.L.B., 707 So. 2d at 845.
The same issue was certified to us by the First District Court of Appeal in E.D.P.:
Does the trial judge, acting after a disposition hearing and based on specific reasons, have the authority to reject the department’s community control recommendation without remanding the case to the Department for an alternative recommendation?
We answered the certified question in the affirmative. State v. E.D.P., No. 92,345, — So. 2d - (Fla. Oct. 8, 1998). In accordance with our decision in E.D.P., we approve D.L.B. and disapprove R.A.M., J.P.M., and S.R. to the extent they are inconsistent with E.D.P. It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., concur. KOGAN, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., dissent.
. R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA) review granted, 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1997); J.P.M. v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
. § 870.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1995)(public fight or brawl is a first-degree misdemeanor).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.P.C., 731 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1999)…the trial court to ask for a second recommendation once it has rejected the Department’s non-commitment recommendation.” J.P.C., 712 So. 2d at 1231. On October 8, 1998, this Court approved the Second District’s D.L.B. decision. See D.L.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1998). In so doing, we explained that the same issue was certified to us as a question of great public importance by the First District in E.D.P. v. State, 728 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524, 724 So. 2d 1144. (…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 799 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)….B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that statute prohibiting “affray” was not impermissibly vague; ordinary people can understand that “affray”, which is fighting in a public place to the terror of people, is prohibited), aff’d, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1998). The rule is not overbroad because there are no First Amendment issues. State v. Hoyt, 609 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Legislation is not susceptible to an overbreadth challenge unless it applies to [*320] conduct protected by t…
-
A.H.D. v. State, 728 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1999)…our decision in E.D.P., we approve A.H.D. and disapprove B.D.W. to the extent it is inconsistent with E.D.P. On October 8, 1998, this Court disapproved R.A.M.-the second conflict case-to the extent it is inconsistent with E.D.P. See D.L.B v. State, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1998). It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.…
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
- 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)
- D.L.B. v. State, 707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- J.P.M. v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Reeder v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)