A.L., 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.
The court reversed a juvenile delinquency commitment order because the trial court failed to obtain a new Department of Juvenile Justice recommendation regarding restrictiveness level after rejecting the Department's initial recommendation, and certified to the Florida Supreme Court whether section 924.051(4) applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
A trial court in a juvenile delinquency proceeding must obtain a new Department of Juvenile Justice recommendation regarding restrictiveness level when it rejects the Department's initial recommendation.
[1] In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, when a trial court rejects the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation regarding disposition, it must obtain a new recommend…
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 juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and entered a no-contest plea. The trial court rejected the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation of c…
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 entered following a no-contest plea. He argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to obtain a recommendation regarding restrictiveness level from the Department of Juvenile Justice after it rejected the Department’s recommendation of community control. Appellant is entitled to relief under decisions such as J.P.M. v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and S.R. v. State, 683 So. 2d 576 (Fla. IstDCA 1996).
The state responds that appellant is precluded from raising this issue because he failed to comply with section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). Based upon our decisions in T.M.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review pending, No. 90,432 (Fla. Apr. 28, 1997), and R.A.M. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we reject the state’s contention that section 924.051(4) applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings. However, as in R.AM., we certify the following question to the supreme court, as one of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?
The order of commitment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a new disposition hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Richars, 792 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…motion does not result in an acquittal, only in a conviction of a lesser offense. Because the State’s right to appeal is purely statutory, and section 924.07 does not authorize an appeal from this order, we have no jurisdiction. See State v. Allen, 743 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. GUNTHER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. M.K., 786 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ht to appeal a final order, see Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1996), the court left intact its holding in Creighton that the state’s right to appeal depends on the existence of a statute. See State v. Allen, 743 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Because the Florida Constitution does not afford the state a right to appeal, the state can appeal a final order in a criminal case or a juvenile delinquency proceeding only if there is a statute authorizing the appeal. The sta…
-
State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…concur. . The defendant argues we lack jurisdiction to review the restitution order. We disagree. ''[Sjection 924.07(l)(k) must be interpreted to allow an appeal by the state from an order partially denying a claim for restitution.” State v. Allen, 743 So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). . That argument has been rejected by our decision in Roberson v. State, 975 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F. 3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir.2006).…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- T.M.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- J.P.M. v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Reeder v. State, 688 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)