F.W., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a juvenile delinquency adjudication because the trial court failed to strictly comply with statutory requirements for disposition hearings by proceeding to disposition without a predisposition report.
A trial court must strictly comply with section 985.23 and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(g) by obtaining and considering a predisposition report before conducting a disposition hearing in juvenile delinquency cases.
[1] Strict compliance with section 985.23 and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(g) is required in juvenile disposition hearings, and a trial court cannot proceed to di…
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 intelligence“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”
Court citing C.B. v. State regarding the mandatory nature of statutory compliance in juvenile disposition hearings.
F.W. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of marijuana and cocaine. The trial court announced its disposition immediately after the adjudicatory …
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 Predisposition Report cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), F.W. challenges his adjudication of delinquency for possession of marijuana and cocaine. Our independent review of the record reveals that the trial court failed to strictly comply with the numerous requirements of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (1997), regarding disposition hearings. 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.”).
The trial court announced its disposition at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing after asking the Department of Juvenile Justice its disposition recommendation. Although Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(g) does allow the trial court to proceed immediately to disposition at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing if the predisposition report is available, there is no evidence in the record of a predisposition report or that one was considered by the court. Rule 8.110(g) provides that if the predisposition report is not available, “the court will continue the case for a disposition hearing and refer it to the appropriate agency or agencies for a study and recommendation.”
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that a new disposition hearing be conducted in strict compliance with section 985.23.
Reversed and remanded.
GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.H. v. State, 859 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…s orally advised the court about the outcome of the staffing. In view of the mandatory language of the statute, such testimony, although properly considered, cannot serve as a substitute for the predisposition report in this case. See F.W. v. State, 777 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the public defender represented to the court that she had no notice of the staffing, and there was nothing in the record to show that her office had been provided notice. Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency is af…
-
L.F. v. State, 890 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…h the many specific requirements of section 985.23, Florida Statutes (2003), governing disposition hearings. Failure to honor these statutory provisions is reversible error. See G.V. v. State, 863 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); F.W. v. State, 777 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, it is unclear from the record whether the court ordered and considered a predisposition report. See § 985.229. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new di…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- C.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)