A.H.D., 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 approved the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in A.H.D., holding that a trial judge may reject a Department of Juvenile Justice community control recommendation after a disposition hearing based on specific reasons without remanding the case for an alternative recommendation.
A trial judge has authority to reject a Department of Juvenile Justice community control recommendation after a disposition hearing based on specific reasons without remanding the case for an alternative recommendation.
[1] A trial judge may reject a Department of Juvenile Justice community control recommendation after a disposition hearing based on specific reasons without remanding the cas…
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.H.D., a child, appealed a juvenile disposition decision, creating a conflict between district court decisions regarding judicial authority to reject…
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review A.H.D. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), based on conflict with B.D.W. v. State, 701 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved on other grounds, 717 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1998), and R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved on other grounds sub nom., State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve A.H.D.
The issue raised in the instant conflict is the same issue that was presented to this Court in State v. E.D.P., 724 So. 2d 1144, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524 (Fla.1998), wherein we addressed the following certified question of great public importance:
DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT [OF JUVENILE JUSTICES COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?
We answered the question in the affirmative. Id.
In accordance with 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.
PARIENTE, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result because we are bound by our decision in State v. E.D.P., 724 So. 2d 1144, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524 (Fla. 1998). However, I continue to agree with Justice Anstead’s well-reasoned dissent in E.D.P. ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1998)
- R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- State v. E.D.P., 724 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1998)
- D.L.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1998)
- B.D.W. v. State, 701 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- J.R. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- A.H.D. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. B.D.W., 717 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1998)
- Rogers v. State, 717 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1998)