D.E.R., 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 juvenile appeals the trial court's decision to revoke his community control and commit him to a level four Department of Juvenile Justice program instead of accepting the Department's recommendation for continued community control. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly articulated valid reasons supported by a preponderance of the evidence for rejecting the Department's recommended disposition.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court properly rejected the Department's recommendation by articulating valid reasons for the departure disposition, including that D.E.R. committed the new delinquent act of grand theft while already under community control supervision, that his custodial parent could not provide adequate supervision if he remained at home, and that he had committed burglaries. These reasons were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and related to the child's specific needs.
[1] A trial court may reject a juvenile department's recommended disposition if it states valid reasons for doing so on the record.
[2] A trial court must state for the record the reasons, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, why it is disregarding a juvenile department's assessment and recommend…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level. The court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.”
Establishes the statutory authority and requirement that trial courts must articulate reasons supported by a preponderance of the evidence when departing from the department's recommended disposition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.E.R. was charged with burglary and grand theft in October 1998, which triggered a petition to revoke his community control imposed in June 1998 for …
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 Juvenile Delinquency Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, C.J.
D.E.R., a juvenile, appeals the orders entered by the trial court revoking his community control and committing him to a level four Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) program. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting the Department’s recommendation that he be returned to community control. We affirm because the trial court set forth valid reasons for rejecting the Department’s recommendation.
In October 1998, the state charged D.E.R. with committing the delinquent acts of burglary1 and grand theft.2 As a result of these new charges, the state also filed a petition seeking to revoke D.E.R.’s community control which had been imposed in June 1998 for committing the delinquent acts of trespass of unoccupied structure and petit theft. See §§ 810.08(l)(b), 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1997). After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted D.E.R.’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge, but found that D.E.R. had committed grand theft and had violated the terms of his community control. At the disposition hearing, the Department recommended that D.E.R. again be placed on community control supervision. The trial court rejected this recommendation and placed D.E.R. in a level four commitment program for a term of six years.
Section 985.23(3)(c) of the Florida Statutes (1997) authorizes a trial court to reject the Department’s recommended disposition:
985.23 Disposition hearings in delinquency cases.
When a child has been found to have committed a delinquent act, the following procedures shall be applicable to the disposition of the case:
(c) The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level. The court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.
In this case, the trial court articulated several reasons for rejecting the Department’s recommendation of a community control disposition, including the reasons that D.E.R.’s last delinquent act had occurred while he was under community control supervision, that D.E.R.’s custodial parent was unable to provide adequate supervision and guidance if the child resided at home, and that D.E.R. had committed burglaries. These are sufficient reasons for departing from the Department’s recommendation. See A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Moreover, these reasons are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and relate to the specific needs of the child. See id.
D.E.R. argues that it was improper for the trial court to consider the burglary for which he was acquitted as a basis for imposing a departure disposition. However, since the trial court made it clear that the reason it rejected the Department’s recommendation was because D.E.R. had committed the new crime of grand theft while on community control, we need not reach the question of whether an unproven offense alone constitutes a valid ground for departure.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 810.02(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
. § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.R. v. State, 782 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…s insufficient to ensure either public safety or an opportunity for E.L. to rehabilitate himself, as again evidenced by his violation of community control by committing crimes following his completion of a moderate risk program. In D.E.R. v. State, 744 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court affirmed the trial court’s deviation from the Department’s recommended restrictiveness level where the trial court found that 1) D.E.R. had committed his last delinquent act while he was on community control; 2) D.E.R…
-
A.J. v. State, 826 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…k residential program because that program had failed. Here, the trial court noted A.J.’s criminal history and addressed AJ.’s needs in relation to the moderate-risk residential program that did not previously meet A.J.’s needs. See D.E.R. v. State, 744 So. 2d 1244, 1245-1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that the trial court was justified in rejecting the department’s recommendation that the juvenile be returned to community control because the last delinquent act occurred when the juvenile was under community…
-
State v. D.H., 920 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See A.W. v. State, 862 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also D.E.R. v. State, 744 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
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
- A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)