P.A., JR., 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.
In this juvenile delinquency case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a commitment order because the trial court imposed a moderate risk enrollment without obtaining a Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) recommendation as to restrictiveness level, as required by statute. The court certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the applicability of preservation requirements and judicial authority to reject DJJ recommendations in juvenile proceedings.
The court held that section 39.052(4)(e), Florida Statutes, unequivocally requires the trial court to receive and consider a DJJ recommendation as to restrictiveness level before ordering commitment. The trial court's failure to obtain this recommendation was error regardless of whether the issue was technically preserved below.
[1] A trial court must obtain a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice before ordering a commitment after rejecting the Department's pre…
[2] A juvenile delinquency proceeding requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice as to restrictiveness level before o…
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“Section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes, "unequivocally requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the [DJJ] as to restrictiveness level before ordering a commitment."”
Establishes the absolute statutory requirement for obtaining DJJ restrictiveness recommendations before imposing juvenile commitments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis with intent to sell. The DJJ's predisposition report recommended community control and e…
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 Restrictiveness Level Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, appellant seeks review of an order of commitment following his guilty plea for possession of cannabis with the intent to sell. He argues that the trial court failed to obtain a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) after rejecting the DJJ’s predisposition recommendation. We reverse.
The DJJ’s predisposition report recommended that appellant be placed on community control and enrolled in a marine program. The trial court rejected this recommendation and imposed a moderate risk enrollment without obtaining a further recommendation as to restrictiveness level from the DJJ. This was error. See, e.g., A.L. v. State, 743 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); K.A.S. v. State, 742 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); G.S.C. v. State, 742 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997);1 O.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes, “unequivocally requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the [DJJ] as to restrictiveness level before ordering a commitment.” S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
The State argues that appellant did not preserve either issue below, as required by section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), and objected only to the sufficiency of the reasons for deviating from the DJJ’s recommendation. We reject this argument. See A.L.; K.A.S.; G.S.C.; R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review pending, 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1997).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, as we did in L.R.J. v. State, No. 97-718 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec.31, 1997), we certify the following questions to the supreme court:
1. DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP. 1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?
2. DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, C.J., JOANOS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur. . These three cases, as well as R.A.M. below, are pending review. State v. T.M.B. et al., 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- O.M. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- A.L. v. State, 743 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- State v. Jasper Allen, III, 743 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- G.S.C. v. State, 742 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- K.A.S. v. State, 742 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)