D.B., 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court's departure from the DJJ's recommendation was improper because it did not follow the required analysis.
A juvenile, D.B., was charged with drug offenses and recommended for probation by the DJJ, but the trial court imposed a residential program, citing t…
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.
When D.B. was fifteen she was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to sell, possession of ecstasy, and trafficking in ecstasy. D.B. pled no contest to possession of ecstasy with intent to sell. The State, in turn, entered a nolle prosequi for the other two charges. In its Pre-Disposition Report, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice noted D.B.’s lack of previous supervision history with the DJJ, D.B’s score as a low risk re-offender, and D.B.’s supportive home and educational environment. Based on this information, the DJJ recommended that D.B. be placed on juvenile probation. The trial court departed from the DJJ’s recommendation, imposing a moderate risk residential program. In doing so, it cited the seriousness of the offense and the protection of the community from such crimes.
After the trial court entered its order, however, the Florida Supreme Court de*876cided E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009). In that decision, the supreme court “announced a new, more rigorous analysis in which a trial court must engage before departing from DJJ’s recommendation.” M.J.S. v. State, 6 So.3d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
In this case, the trial court’s explanation for departing from the DJJ’s assessment and recommendation is not in accordance with the required analysis set forth by the supreme court in E.A.R. We, therefore, “reverse and remand to provide the trial court an opportunity to enter an order in compliance with EAR., or, if the court cannot, impose the probation recommended by the DJJ.” Id.
Reversed and Remanded.
GERBER, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.V. v. State, 216 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…sive, premeditated and willful; record and previous criminal history; no prospect for adequate protection of public and no likelihood for rehabilitation in a community service program.” 16 So. 3d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also D.B. v. State, 12 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (relying on E.A.R. to reverse a departure sentence citing only the seriousness of the offense and protection of the community from such crimes); L.A.G. v. State, 58 So. 3d 393, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (recognizing that “the nature…
Authorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- M.J.S. v. State, 6 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)