M.B., A CHILD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2009-03-06
No. 5D08-598
PALMER, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
9 So. 3d 40 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2009)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in declaring sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional, reversing that portion of the order.


Facts & Procedural History

A juvenile was committed to a residential program despite the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation for probation. The trial court declared …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

M.B., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s commitment of him to a Level 6 residential program despite the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation that he be placed on probation. The State cross-appeals the trial court’s order declaring sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional. This Court has jurisdiction. Fla. RApp. P. 9.140(b)(1)(A) and 9.140(c)(1)(E).

We are unable to address the first issue because M.B. failed to preserve the issue in accordance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135. I.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). As for the cross-appeal, the trial court held sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b) unconstitutional based on the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court reached this conclusion based on the premise that the statute places sentencing discretion solely within the province of the Department of Juvenile Justice.1 We disagree and reverse. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008) (stating court “may order placement at different restrictiveness level” than recommended by department where it provides reasons supported by preponderance of evidence).

*41AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

PALMER, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw