K.O., 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.
K.O., a juvenile delinquent, appeals his placement in a level eight commitment program, arguing the trial court violated Florida Statutes section 985.23 by failing to obtain and consider a Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) recommendation before determining his commitment disposition. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that strict compliance with the statutory requirement to receive and consider a DJJ recommendation is mandatory in juvenile delinquency disposition hearings.
The trial court's failure to comply with section 985.23's requirement to receive and consider a DJJ recommendation before determining commitment placement constitutes reversible error. The issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because juvenile delinquency proceedings do not require prior objection as a condition of appellate review, unlike adult criminal proceedings.
[1] A trial court must strictly adhere to statutory requirements in delinquency disposition hearings, including considering recommendations from the Department of Juvenile Ju…
[2] Failure by a trial court to consider a required recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice in a delinquency disposition hearing constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If the court determines that commitment to the department is appropriate, the juvenile probation officer shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child.... The court shall consider the department's recommendation in making its commitment decision.”
Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement that a DJJ recommendation must be provided and considered before commitment placement is determined.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.O. was adjudicated delinquent and the trial court imposed a disposition order placing him in a level eight commitment program followed by post-commi…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
K.O. appeals the disposition order placing him in a level eight commitment program to be followed by post-commitment community control. The trial court determined K.O.’s placement without the benefit of a recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). K.O. argues that the trial court’s failure to receive and consider such a recommendation was in violation of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (1999) and constitutes reversible error. We agree and reverse.
Section 985.23, entitled “Disposition hearings in delinquency cases,” provides in paragraph (3)(b):
If the court determines that commitment to the department is appropriate, the juvenile probation officer shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child.... The court shall consider the department’s recommendation in making its commitment decision.
§ 985.23(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied). The requirements of this statute must be strictly adhered to. See C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”) (citations omitted); see also A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that “[i]f the trial court fails to make specific findings to support its determination and disregards the DJJ’s recommendations without sufficient reasons, or there is no evidence in record that the court has considered the dispositional report, the cause must be reversed and remanded”) (citing K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Here, because that standard of compliance was not met, reversal is required.
The State concedes that section 985.23 mandates that the trial court consider a recommendation by the DJJ when commitment is necessary in a delinquency proceeding and that the court did not receive such a recommendation in this case. Notwithstanding its concession, however, the State argues that the error was not preserved for appeal by objection at the hearing; thus, the order of disposition should be affirmed. This argument is without merit. Although K.O. did not object at his dispositional hearing that the trial court did not receive or consider a DJJ recommendation prior to determining the commitment terms, objection was not necessary in order to preserve the issue. The criminal appeal statute, section 924.051, does not apply to juvenile proceedings. See State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1998); A.F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Moreover, unlike adult proceedings, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure do not contain a similar proceeding to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which allows a criminal defendant an opportunity to request correction of an illegal sentence within 30 days of sentencing. See A.F.; T.G. v. State, 717 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, since there is no collateral review in juvenile delinquency proceedings comparable to adult proceedings and the criminal appeal statute is inapplicable, this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal. Id.
In summary, the failure by the trial court to comply with the delinquency statute constitutes reversible error. K.O. is entitled to a new disposition with the benefit of a DJJ recommendation and consideration of it by the trial court. If the trial court chooses to deviate from the recommendation it receives from the DJJ, then it must comply with the statutory requirement that the reasons for departing from the recommendation be properly supported in writing. See § 985.23(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999).
REVERSED and REMANDED.’
THOMPSON, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ely raised before the trial court and ruled upon by the trial judge. Prior to July 1, 1999, issues in juvenile cases that were not properly preserved pursuant to section 924.051 could be raised for the first time on direct appeal. See K.O. v. State, 765 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, an amendment to section 985.234(1), Florida Statutes (1999), which governs appeals in juvenile cases, now requires that appeals regarding offenses committed after July 1, 1999, the effective date of the amendment, be go…
-
D.R. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…he motion for arrest of judgment as a motion for rehearing, it should have addressed the merits of the motion. If the trial court had decided the two rules were not comparable, it still should have allowed D.R. to raise the issue. See K.O. v. State, 765 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Because the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion as untimely, D.R. may raise this argument for the first time on appeal. Id. On the merits, this court has previously held that: A defendant is entitled to have the ch…
-
J.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…nce the alleged error was not raised below, it has been waived for purposes of direct appellate review. We agree. For offenses committed prior to July 1, 1999, juvenile disposition issues can be raised for the first time on appeal. See KO.v. State, 765 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, section 985.234(1) of the Florida Statutes (1999), which governs appeals in delinquency proceedings, was amended, effective July 1, 1999, to require that appeals be taken “within the time and in the manner prescribed by…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1998)
- A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- A. F. v. State, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- William Earl Banks v. Singletary, 718 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Cooper v. State, 717 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- DIX v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)