K.M., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, RESPONDENT
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.M., a juvenile arrested for petit theft, was ordered into secure detention despite a Risk Assessment Instrument score authorizing nonsecure detention. The court granted her habeas corpus petition, holding that the trial court must either provide written findings meeting statutory requirements or release her from secure detention.
The trial court must comply with Florida Statutes section 985.215(2)(j), which requires written findings of clear and convincing reasons when ordering a placement more restrictive than the Risk Assessment Instrument indicates. If the court cannot provide such findings, it must order the juvenile's release.
[1] A court ordering a juvenile placement more restrictive than indicated by a risk assessment instrument must state clear and convincing reasons in writing for such placemen…
[2] A juvenile detained in secure detention in contravention of statutory law is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
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 orders a placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of the risk assessment instrument, the court shall state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for such placement.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that triggered the habeas corpus relief; the trial court failed to comply with this mandate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M. was arrested for petit theft and initially scored seven points on the Risk Assessment Instrument, which authorized nonsecure or home detention. S…
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 Nonsecure Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
K.M., a juvenile, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that she is being detained in secure detention in contravention of the statutory law of this state. We agree and grant the petition.
K.M. was arrested on a charge of petit theft and a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) scored seven points, authorizing nonsecure or home detention. She was released into home detention-at that time. The following day, a detention hearing was held pursuant to section 985:2"15(2)(j), Florida Statutes, and the court heard testimony relating to KM.’s problems in school and at home and her criminal history, and argument of counsel. She was ordered to be held in secure detention until the adjudicatory hearing.
According to petitioner, the court was bound by the RAI in determining the appropriate detention unless it complied with section 985.215(2)(j), which provides in pertinent part:
If the court orders a placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of the risk assessment instrument, the court shall state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for such placement.
In response to the petition, the state correctly concedes that petitioner’s argument is well-taken. J.J. v. Fryer, 765 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); C.L.C. v. State, 863 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); M.P. v. Gardner, 838 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
We therefore conclude that the petition must be granted. A closer question, however, is the relief to which petitioner is entitled. The state argues that relief should be in the alternative, ordering the court to either comply with section 985.215(2)(j) or to order petitioner’s release. Because neither counsel present at the detention hearing advised the trial judge of his obligation to enter a written order in this circumstance, and in the absence of statutory directive that failure to comply with section 985.215(2)0) at the detention hearing cannot be cured at a later time, we agree with the state on the issue of remedy. See D.B., 848 So. 2d at 1220 (“The [trial] court may revisit the issue if there is a basis to do so.”)
To ensure that the duration of any improper detention is kept to a minimum, the trial court shall either enter a written order in accordance with section 985.215(2)©, Florida Statutes, or order K.M.’s release from secure detention by 5 o’clock P.M. on the second business day that follows the date of this opinion.
PETITION GRANTED.
ALLEN, BARFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.D.T. v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…“If the court orders a placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of the risk assessment instrument, the court shall state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for such placement.”) See also K.M. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 898 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); M.P. v. Gardner, 888 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is hereby granted and Petitioner shall be released immediately from secure detention. See D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219…
-
T.D.S. v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…required to provide written reasons for overriding the detention status determined appropriate by the RAI, but asserts that the petition should not be granted. The State maintains that this Court should follow K.M. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 898 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and require the trial judge to either enter a written order per section 985.215(2), or order T.D.S.’s release from secure detention within a short period of time. This Court has decided not to take that path. See C.D.T. v.…
-
A.R. v. Dobuler, 960 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…oviding written reasons sufficient to comply with section 985.255(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), or to release A.R. from secure detention by 5 p.m. on the second business day that follows the date of this opinion. See K.M. v. Dep’t of Juv. Justice, 898 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing. Petition granted.…
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
- J.J. v. Fryer, 765 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- M.P. v. Gardner, 838 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- C.L.C. v. State, 863 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)