C.M.K., 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 the trial court's disposition order committing C.M.K. to moderate-risk residential placement because the trial court failed to state reasons for disregarding the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation of probation, as required by statute.
The trial court's disposition order must be reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to state for the record the reasons why it disregarded the Department's recommendation of probation, as mandated by Section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2002).
[1] A trial judge has the authority to reject a department's community control recommendation and impose a different disposition without remanding the case to the department…
[2] A trial court must state for the record the reasons why it is disregarding the department's assessment and recommended restrictiveness level.
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.”
Statutory requirement establishing that the trial court must provide reasons when deviating from Department recommendations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.M.K. was adjudicated delinquent. Following the adjudication, C.M.K.'s mother testified that although appellant was still having temper tantrums incl…
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
PER CURIAM.
In this juvenile delinquency appeal, C.M.K., appellant, seeks review of the trial court’s disposition order in which the court adjudicated him delinquent and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department”) for moderate-risk residential placement. Appellant contends that the order must be reversed because the trial court failed to set forth any reasons, either orally or in writing, for disregarding the Department’s recommendation of probation. We agree.
Section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2002), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
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.
(emphasis added). After hearing appellant’s mother’s testimony that, although appellant was still having temper tantrums, which included yelling at her other children and kicking her trash can around, he was no longer physically abusing her other children, the trial court set forth, “At this time, I’m going to adjudicate you delinquent, commit you to a moderate-risk placement and be on home detention with a monitor until you’re placed.” The trial court failed to state for the record the reasons why it chose to disregard the Department’s recommendation of probation. Accordingly, we reverse the disposition order and remand for a new disposition hearing. See T.M.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new disposition hearing because the trial court gave no reasons for disregarding the Department’s recommendation of a moderate-risk restrictiveness level and instead committed the appellant to a high-risk program), approved on other grounds, State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1998); see also K.C. v. State, 721 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court’s disposition order and remanding because the trial court disregarded the Department’s recommended sentence without providing its reasons for such); A.K. v. State, 713 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court’s disposition order and remanding for further proceedings because the trial court failed to state any reasons for disregarding the Department’s recommended disposition).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new disposition hearing.
WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.R. v. State, 973 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…a preponderance of the evidence and must make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child.”). Accordingly, we reverse the disposition order and remand for a new disposition hearing. C.M.K. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED. BENTON, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
L.S. v. State, 978 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…2d at 370 (holding that trial court must reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s [*222] order and remand for a new disposition hearing. C.M.K. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED. PADOVANÓ, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. T.M.B., 716 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1998)
- T.M.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- A.K. v. State, 713 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th 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)