B.L.G., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Reasons cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
B.L.G., a juvenile, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that she is being unlawfully detained in secure detention despite a risk assessment instrument score of zero, and that she does not otherwise satisfy the requisites for secure detention. We agree and grant the petition.
On April 27, 2006, the juvenile, who was charged with violating her probation, was placed in secure detention for a period not to exceed 21 days. The judge did not provide any written reasons explaining why he selected a more restrictive placement than that indicated by the risk assessment instrument. If a child has been charged with violating probation, he or she may continue to be held in a consequence unit or home detention upon order of the court, but in the absence of additional clear and convincing reasons the child may not be placed in secure detention. See § 985.215(2)(h) and (j), Fla. Stat. (2005). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted and petitioner shall be immediately released from secure detention. See T.D.S. v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); C.D.T. v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
PETITION GRANTED.
SAWAYA, TORPY, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & Dep't of Juv. Just. v. S.M., 131 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2013)…at “[bjecause S.M.’s RAI score was zero, the [trial] court erred in placing her in home detention.” Id. at 176. The Fourth District’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with R.J.L. v. State, 22 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), B.L.G. v. State, 928 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and T.D.S. v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that a juvenile may be placed in home detention with a risk assessment score of zero. We have jurisdiction. See art.…
-
Johnson v. State, 948 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…son, however, made the same assertion in both his first and second rule 3.800(a) motions, which were denied by the trial court and affirmed by this Court on appeal.1 See Johnson v. State, 875 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (table); Johnson v. State, 928 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Notably, in denying his second rule 3.800(a) motion as successive, the trial court also noted that vindictive sentencing claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Bouno v. State, 900 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2…
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Marcine Howard v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- C.D.T. v. State, 920 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- T.D.S. v. State, 922 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)