L.A.G., 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 court held that the juvenile court departed upward from the DJJ's recommended disposition without providing adequate reasons for the restrictiveness level imposed.
[1] A juvenile court must provide adequate reasons for departing upward from a Department of Juvenile Justice recommended disposition.
[2] The nature of the charges against a juvenile is not a sufficient reason to depart from a Department of Juvenile Justice 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 intelligenceL.A.G. pleaded no contest to drug offenses and the DJJ recommended probation, but the juvenile court committed her to a moderate risk program instead.…
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 Restrictiveness Level cases and more on FLexlaw
L.A.G. pleaded no contest to selling marijuana within 1000 feet of a school, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of oxycodone, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) recommended a probationary sentence. The juvenile court committed L.A.G. to a moderate risk program instead of placing her on probation. On appeal, L.A.G. challenges the disposition but not the adjudication of delinquency. The State properly concedes error. Because the juvenile court departed upward from the DJJ’s recommended disposition without providing adequate reasons for the restrictiveness level imposed, we reverse the disposition. See E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009); N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). We affirm the adjudication of delinquency.
The reasons offered by the juvenile court for departing upward from the DJJ’s recommendation focused on the nature of the charges against L.A.G. As this court has previously explained, “the ‘nature of the charge’ is not a sufficient reason to depart from the D.J.J.’s recommendation.” A.J.V. v. State, 842 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing K.M.T. v. State, 695 So.2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). On remand, the trial court shall not depart from the DJJ’s recommendation unless it can “logically and persuasively explain why, in light of [the] differing characteristics [of the various restrictiveness levels], one level is better suited to serving both the rehabilitative needs of [L.A.G.] — in the least restrictive setting — and maintaining the ability of the State to protect the public from further acts of delinquency.” E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 638.
It is not clear from the record whether this error can be corrected on remand or whether the disposition has been fully served. On remand, L.A.G. is entitled to request a new disposition hearing if such a hearing will benefit this juvenile.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND, DAVIS, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.V. v. State, 216 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…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 of the charge is not a sufficient reason to depart from the D.J.J.’s recommendation.”) (internal citation omitted). Here, the trial judge focused excessively on the characterization of the crime…
-
R.C.B., JR. v. State, 100 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…of the different restrictiveness levels and failed to explain why a high risk facility is better suited to R.C.B.’s rehabilitative needs and the safety of the public. See, e.g., E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614, 633, 638-39 (Fla.2009); L.A.G. v. State, 58 So. 3d 393, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); S.G. v. State, 26 So. 3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); N.P. v. State, 18 So. 3d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); B.L.R. v. State, 74 So. 3d 173, 176-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). As in L.A.G., 58 So. 3d at 394, it is not clear whethe…
Authorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- A.J.V. v. State, 842 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- K.M.T. v. State, 695 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Harrison v. Coronet Indus., Inc., 18 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- N.P. v. State, 18 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)