K.C., 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.
Juvenile's delinquency adjudication was affirmed, but the disposition order was reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements to make specific written findings supporting commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice and to consider the disposition report.
A trial court must make specific written findings on the record explaining its reasons for committing a juvenile to the Department of Juvenile Justice and must consider the disposition report as required by statute.
[1] Trial courts must make specific written findings on the record explaining reasons for committing a juvenile to the Department of Juvenile Justice and must consider the di…
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 intelligenceK.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The trial court did not make specific findings suppo…
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 Sentencing Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
K.C., a juvenile, challenges the order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice. We find no error in the trial court’s finding that he was delinquent. However, we must reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing because the trial court failed to comply with section 39.052(4), Florida Statutes (1995).
Section 39.052(4)(e) provides that if the trial court determines the child should be committed to the department, 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)(e)3., Fla. Stat. (1995); K.M.T., 695 So. 2d 1309. We also note that the disposition report is not included in the record on appeal. Although the department made oral recommendations at the hearing, there is no evidence in the record that the trial court considered a disposition report as required by section 39.052(4)(a).
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…dings to support its determination and disregards the DJJ’s recommendations without sufficient reasons, or there is no evidence in record that the court has considered the dispositional report, the cause must be reversed and remanded. K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Similarly, where the reasons involve a juvenile’s family, or other reasons which are unrelated to the juvenile before the court, they cannot constitute competent substantial evidence under the statute.4 In this case, although th…
-
K.O. v. State, 765 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…support its determination and disregards the DJJ’s recommendations without sufficient reasons, or there is no evidence in record that the court has considered the dispositional report, the cause must be reversed and remanded”) (citing K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Here, because that standard of compliance was not met, reversal is required. The State concedes that section 985.23 mandates that the trial court consider a recommendation by the DJJ when commitment is necessary in a delinquenc…
-
C.M.K. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ons for disregarding the Department’s recommendation of a moderate-risk restrictiveness level and instead committed the appellant to a high-risk program), approved on other grounds, State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1998); see also K.C. 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…
Authorities Cited
- K.M.T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)