A.F., 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.F., a juvenile delinquent, appealed his adjudication and level six commitment for battery, arguing the trial court failed to make specific findings and improperly departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendations. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court's findings were sufficient and that the court did not actually depart from the Department's recommended restrictiveness level.
The trial court did not err. The findings stated on the record were sufficient to comply with statutory requirements for adjudication and commitment. The court did not depart from the Department's recommendation regarding restrictiveness level; it only disagreed with the recommendation to suspend commitment, which does not require stated reasons under the statute.
[1] A trial court's findings on the record are sufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency and commitment if they address the nature of the offense, the child's soph…
[2] A trial court is not required to state specific reasons for disagreeing with a recommendation to suspend a child's commitment, as opposed to departing from the recommende…
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 findings made on the record were sufficient for A.F.'s adjudication and that the court did not depart from the Department's recommendation relating to the restrictiveness level of commitment”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court complied with statutory requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.F. was initially charged with burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief, pleading no contest and receiving a level four commitment with community…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
In this appeal, A.F. claims that the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings to support AF.’s adjudication of delinquency and commitment. A.F. also asserts that the court further erred when it failed to state reasons for departing from the recommendations of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department”) regarding commitment. We find that the findings made on the record were sufficient for A.F.’s adjudication and that the court did not depart from the Department’s recommendation relating to the restrictiveness level of commitment.
In connection with a charge of burglary of a conveyance, grand theft and criminal mischief, A.F. pled no contest and was placed in a level four commitment program which included community control. About nine months later, A.F. was charged with battery after an altercation with his two-year-old nephew, whom he struck in the chest with considerable force. As a result, A.F.’s case manager recommended the revocation of his post-commitment community control. At the pre-dis-position hearing, A.F. pled no contest to the charge of battery and pled guilty to violating community control in exchange for a recommended level six commitment. He contended, however, that the incident was an accident and that he was only disciplining the child. At the disposition hearing, the Department recommended that A.F. be committed to a level six moderate risk program but also recommended that commitment be suspended to allow him to continue on community control. The state disagreed with the Department’s recommendation of a suspended commitment. After the court pronounced that it would not suspend commitment, A.F. requested that the judge “go over [the] case again,” arguing that the battery was an accident. The judge responded, “I’m sorry, I don’t think it was an accident at all. So you are committed to a level six program .... ”
In addition to the statement that the court believed that the event was not an accident, the order of disposition contained findings that “based upon the nature of the offense committed by the child; the child’s sophistication, maturity and past record and history; the needs of the child; protection of the community; and the further findings announced in open court, the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department....” These findings are sufficient to comply with section 985.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), which requires record findings of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the Department.
A.F. also contends that in disregarding the Department’s recommendation that commitment be suspended, the trial court failed to comply with section 985.23(3)(e) which requires reasons for departing from the Department’s recommended levels of restrictiveness and placement. However, the trial court did not disregard the Department’s recommendation with respect to the restrictiveness level and placement. Instead, the court disagreed with the Department’s recommendation to suspend commitment. Because section 985.23(3)(c) requires only that the court give reasons for disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the Department, no violation of the statutory requirements occurred in this case.
Affirmed.
STONE, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.L.K. v. State, 776 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…asons set forth by the court for disregarding the recommendation level must reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child. See A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); see e.g., A.F. v. State, 731 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (this court upheld the trial court’s finding that the juvenile’s striking of his two-year-old nephew was not accidental and warranted commitment to level six moderate risk program in light of the court’s consideration of the juve…
-
C.T. v. State, 816 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…essment as to the restrictiveness level and placement of the child. As the restrictiveness level imposed by the court was the same as that recommended by the department, the requirements of section 985.23(3)(c) were not triggered. See A.F. v. State, 731 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The facts of this case are similar to those in A.F., where the department recommended that the child be committed to a level six moderate risk program and that the commitment be suspended to allow him to continue on commun…
-
T.N. v. State, 786 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…n 985.23 requiring findings on adjudication of delinquency and commitment to HRS, the court held that the trial court’s specific adoption of HRS’s detailed dispositional recommendation satisfied the statutory mandate. See id. See also A.F. v. State, 731 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In A.F., where the trial court stated orally at sentencing, “I’m sorry, I don’t think it was an accident at all,” committed the child to a level six program, and, further, entered a written dispositional order which contained th…