J.S., 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.
J.S. appeals a disposition order committing him to a residential program after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm on school property. The appellate court reversed because the trial court departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice's probation recommendation without articulating legally sufficient reasons tied to the child's needs or the restrictiveness level of the commitment.
The trial court abused its discretion. Although a trial judge may disregard DJJ recommendations under Florida law, the court must articulate specific reasons tied to the commitment level and the child's needs. The trial court's reasons merely demonstrated disagreement with the DJJ's recommendation and did not reference the commitment level with respect to J.S.'s needs.
[1] A trial court may disregard a juvenile justice department's dispositional recommendation, but must articulate specific reasons for departure that reference the restrictiv…
[2] A trial court cannot depart from a juvenile justice department's dispositional recommendation merely because it disagrees with the recommendation.
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“a trial judge may disregard the DJJ's recommendations under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), but must state reasons for doing so that make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child”
Establishes the legal standard that trial courts must follow when departing from DJJ recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.S. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm on school property. The Department of Juvenile Justice recommended probation for J.S. The trial court, …
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 Disposition Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.S. appeals from a disposition order entered after he pled guilty to the charge of possession of a firearm on school property.1 The Department of Juvenile Justice, (“DJJ”), recommended probation, but the trial court committed J.S. to a moderate risk residential program after the State requested it. We agree with J.S. that the trial court abused its discretion by departing from the DJJ’s recommendation without articulating sufficient reasons for departure. Accordingly, we reverse.
It is well-established that a trial judge may disregard the DJJ’s recommendations under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), but must state reasons for doing so that make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child. E.g., D.L.T. v. State, 960 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); L.R. v. State, 948 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); K.M. v. State, 891 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); S.L.K. v. State, 776 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see generally 16 Fla. Prac., Sentencing § 9.12 (2008 ed.).
The trial court cannot depart merely because it disagrees with the DJJ’s recommendation. G.L., 937 So. 2d at 803. If the trial court fails to make specific findings to support its determination and disregards the DJJ’s recommendations without sufficient reasons supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or there is no record evidence that the court considered the DJJ’s pre-disposition report, (“PDR”), this court must reverse and remand. Id. Further, the seriousness of the charge is not a sufficient reason to depart from the DJJ’s recommendation. E.g., A.S. v. State, 948 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
In the instant case, although it appears the trial court considered the PDR and the DJJ’s recommendation, the reasons articulated by the court for its disposition simply demonstrate the trial judge’s disagreement with the recommendation, and in no way referenced the commitment level with respect to J.S.’ needs. In fact, the trial judge candidly stated that he did not know what a moderate risk residential program offered, but “assumed” that J.S. would benefit from a commitment, and that “hopefully” J.S. would get whatever evaluation, counseling or education the DJJ could provide or allow. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s disposition order and remand for a new disposition hearing.
The trial court must either follow the DJJ’s probationary recommendation or articulate a legally valid basis for departure from the recommendation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, TORPY, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . § 790.115, Fla. Stat. (2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
X.H. v. State, 985 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…nd, accordingly, affirm. A trial court may disregard DJJ’s recommendation provided that the court states the reasons for doing so and makes reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child. See J.S. v. State, 971 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); T.N. v. State, 929 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); S.S.M. v. State, 814 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th [*686] DCA 2002). The trial court’s reasons must also be supported by a prepondera…
-
F.T. v. State, 9 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…he public from further acts of delinquency. E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614, 633 (Fla.2009) (emphasis in original). A trial court may not deviate from DJJ’s recommendation simply because the judge disagrees with the recommendation. See J.S. v. State, 971 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Here, the trial court’s decision seems primarily calculated to punish the child for refusing to submit to a voluntary drug test and was not based on the needs of the…
Authorities Cited
- S.L.K. v. State, 776 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- K.M. v. State, 891 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- L.R. v. State, 948 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- A.S. v. State, 948 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- The Child v. State, 960 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)