C.D.T., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A juvenile petitioner sought habeas corpus relief from secure detention, arguing he was unlawfully detained despite a Risk Assessment Instrument score of zero. The Florida appellate court granted the petition because the trial court failed to provide written reasons as statutorily required when ordering a more restrictive placement than the RAI indicated.
A juvenile cannot be lawfully detained in secure detention when the trial court fails to provide written, clear and convincing reasons for ordering a placement more restrictive than indicated by the Risk Assessment Instrument. The petition for habeas corpus is granted and the juvenile must be released immediately from secure detention, though the trial court may revisit the issue if it decides there is a basis to do so.
[1] A court must state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for ordering a juvenile placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of a risk assessment instrum…
[2] A juvenile detained in secure detention despite a risk assessment instrument score of zero, who does not meet the requisites for secure detention, is entitled to release.
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 the trial court failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.D.T., a juvenile, was arrested on February 9, 2006 for violation of probation. At a detention hearing on February 10, 2006, the trial court became c…
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 Detention Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Petitioner, C.D.T., a juvenile, seeks a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he is being unlawfully detained in secure detention despite a Risk Assessment Instrument (“RAI”) score of zero and that he does not meet the requisites for secure detention. See § 985.213, Fla. Stat. (2005). We agree and grant the petition.
C.D.T. was arrested 9 February 2006 for a violation of probation (<fVOP”). He was released into home detention and scheduled to appear for a detention hearing on 10 February, pursuant to section 985.215(2)©. At the hearing, the trial court became concerned with C.D.T.’s recurring and escalating violent patterns toward teachers and other authority figures and, thus, placed him in secure detention pending his VOP hearing set for 23 February 2006. However, the trial court did not articulate reasons, let alone any clear and convincing written reasons, in its detention order for C.D.T.’s more restrictive placement. In its response, the State related that the court was concerned with pending unfiled charges against C.D.T., but acknowledged the trial court did not enter written reasons for the departure even though C.D.T.’s lawyer objected to the placement without written reasons. Florida statutes require the court to provide written reasons if the court selects a more restrictive placement than indicated by the RAI. See § 985.215(2)© (“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 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (ordering a child released from home detention when the trial judge did not enter written reasons why it did not comply with RAI placement recommendation). See also R.G. v. State, 817 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (granting writ of habeas corpus when child was detained and no RAI was prepared.) As in D.B., the trial court in the instant case may revisit the issue if it decides there is a basis to do so. See id.
Petition GRANTED.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.P. v. State, 952 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…who is awaiting placement in a moderate-risk residential program must be removed from detention within 5 days.... Any child held in secure detention during the 5 days must meet detention admission criteria under this part.” See also C.D.T. v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). K.P. additionally asserts that the trial court lacked the discretion to order an adjudicated juvenile awaiting placement to a moderate risk commitment facility to be held in secure detention for more than the 5 days contemplate…
-
T.D.S. v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…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. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is hereby granted, and T.D.S. shall be released immediately from secure detention. See D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (releasing child from home detention…
-
M.D. v. State, 923 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…985.215(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“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.”); C.D.T. v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb.16, 2006). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The trial court may revisit the issue if there is an appro [*557] priate basis to do so. Id.; D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Petition…
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
- R.G. v. State, 817 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- D.B. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- K.M. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 898 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Dorrell L. Smith v. State, 888 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Hoover Reed v. State, 888 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)