K.J., 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.J., a juvenile, appealed his commitment to a level six program for violating probation, arguing the trial court erred by failing to consider a predisposition report (PDR) before sentencing. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under the 2000 amendment to Florida Statutes § 985.229, a PDR is required only when a residential commitment is anticipated or recommended, not when the court is merely enforcing a prior disposition order.
The trial court was not required to obtain and review a PDR because the court was merely lifting a stay and enforcing a prior disposition order that had already been agreed to at the time of the original plea, rather than making a new recommendation for residential commitment.
[1] A juvenile court is not required to order or review a predisposition report before imposing a residential commitment disposition when the commitment was previously agreed…
[2] A predisposition report is required for a juvenile only when a residential commitment disposition is anticipated or recommended by a court officer or the department.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A predisposition report shall be ordered for any child for whom a residential commitment disposition is anticipated or recommended by an officer of the court or by the department.”
This is the statutory language from the 2000 amendment that defines when a PDR is required, establishing that it is needed only when a commitment is 'anticipated or recommended,' not in all situations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.J. was charged with unlawfully delivering cocaine, entered a no contest plea, and was placed on probation with a stayed commitment to a level six pr…
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 (Pdr) cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
This is an appeal by K.J., a juvenile, from an Amended Delinquency Disposition Order, which order imposed a commitment to a level six program over appellant’s objection to the court’s failure to consider a predisposition report (PDR). We affirm.
A Petition for Delinquency was filed against appellant charging him with unlawfully delivering cocaine. He entered a plea of no contest and was placed on probation. The court stayed commitment to a level six program in lieu of thirty-five hours community service, which had been recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
Thereafter, an Affidavit for Violation of Probation was filed based upon an allegation that K.J. had absconded from the supervision of the DJJ. At a hearing he was found guilty of the violation, based in part on his own admission, and was committed to a level six program. He objected to being sentenced to a commitment without the court’s considering a PDR. Appellant argues that it was error to sentence him without first reviewing a PDR. The appellee does not dispute that the law in effect prior to the 2000 amendment to section 985.229, Florida Statutes, required that a PDR be prepared and reviewed by the judge prior to committing a juvenile. In 2000, however, the legislature amended section 985.229(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2001). Pursuant to the wording of the amended statute the trial court does not have to order or review a PDR in all situations. Subsection (1) of the statute provides, in part, as follows:
A predisposition report shall be ordered for any child for whom a residential commitment disposition is anticipated or recommended by an officer of the court or by the department.
§ 985.229(1), Fla. Stat. (2001).
In this case, the residential commitment to the level six program had already been determined and agreed to by appellant at the time of the original plea for unlawfully delivering cocaine, the original charge. The commitment had been stayed while appellant was on probation. At the hearing on appellant’s violation of his probation, the trial court merely lifted the stay and enforced the prior disposition order. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, no recommendations were made by the DJJ, nor were any required. In addition, the trial court was not required to obtain and review a PDR prior to sentencing appellant.
AFFIRMED.
HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.S. v. State, 886 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…rve as the basis for the revocation of his community control, he was not afforded due process. See State v. Spratling, 336 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1976). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Id. (emphasis added). See also K.J. v. State, 867 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(juvenile whose commitment was stayed in lieu of community service was afforded due process, including an affidavit of violation of probation and a hearing, prior to the stay being lifted). Because of this due process violation,…
-
A.L.M. v. State, 176 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ered the agreed-upon previously-suspended placement. Under these circumstances, the court did not need to seek a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department before ordering A.L.M into non-secure residential placement. See K.J. v. State, 867 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding no restrictiveness level recommendation was required where appellant had agreed to residential commitment at the time of no contest plea to original charge, commitment was stayed while appellant was on probation, a…