K.M.H., 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.
K.M.H., a juvenile, appeals her commitment to moderate-risk residential placement for a probation violation based on a misdemeanor offense. The court reversed because the trial court failed to make the written finding required by Florida Statute 985.441(2)(d) necessary to justify residential placement for a misdemeanor-based offense.
The trial court erred and reversal is required because it failed to make the mandatory written finding under section 985.441(2)(d) that either public protection requires residential placement or the child's particular needs would be best served by such placement.
[1] A trial court may not commit a juvenile to residential placement for a misdemeanor offense or a probation violation based on a misdemeanor offense unless the probation vi…
[2] Commitment to residential placement for a misdemeanor offense or a probation violation based on a misdemeanor offense requires a written finding by the court that public…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court may not commit a juvenile "for any misdemeanor offense or any probation violation at a restrictiveness level other than minimum-risk nonresidential unless the probation violation is a new violation of law constituting a felony."”
Establishes the general rule restricting residential placement for misdemeanor offenses under section 985.441(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M.H. was adjudicated delinquent and the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended probation with inpatient drug treatment. The trial court 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 Residential Placement cases and more on FLexlaw
K.M.H. appeals a delinquency disposition order committing her to a moderate-risk residential placement. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) recommended that K.M.H. be placed on probation with the requirement that she participate in an inpatient drug treatment program. K.M.H. argues that the trial court erred by failing to make the written finding required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes, and that such finding was necessary for K.M.H. to be committed to residential placement for a misdemeanor offense. K.M.H. also argues that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009) in deviating from DJJ’s recommendation. We agree that reversal is required because the trial court failed to make the written finding mandated by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. We decline to reach the second issue raised by K.M.H.
The state properly concedes that the trial court did not make the written finding required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes, when it committed K.M.H. to a residential placement for a violation of probation based on a misdemeanor offense. Section 985.441, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2011 to restrict the trial court’s authority to commit an adjudicated juvenile to a residential placement for a misdemeanor offense. Ch. 2011-54, § 1, Laws of Fla. The statute provides that a trial court may not commit a juvenile “for any misdemeanor offense or any probation violation at a restrictiveness level other than minimum-risk nonresidential unless the probation violation is a new violation of law constituting a felony.” § 985.441(2), Fla. Stat. However, the statute provides four exceptions where a juvenile who commits a misdemeanor offense or who violates probation based on a misdemeanor offense may be committed to residential placement:
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the court having jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent child whose underlying offense was a misdemeanor may not commit the child for any misdemeanor offense or any probation violation at a restrictiveness level other than minimum-risk non-residential unless the probation violation is a new violation of law constituting a felony. However, the court may commit such child to a low-risk or moderate-risk residential placement if:
(a) The child has previously been adjudicated for a felony offense;
(b) The child has been adjudicated or had adjudication withheld for three or more misdemeanor offenses;
(c) The child is before the court for disposition for a violation of s. 800.03, s. 806.031, or s. 828.12; or
*264(d) The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protection of the public requires such placement or that the particular needs of the child would be best served by such placement. Such finding must be in writing.
§ 985.441(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (emphasis added).
Subsection (d) is the only applicable exception to this case. Because the trial court here did not make the required written finding that residential placement is necessary to protect the public or based upon the particular needs of K.M.H., we are constrained to reverse. On remand, the trial court will be provided an opportunity to enter a written order in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes, if it can do so. Cf. C.M.H. v. State, 25 So.3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding “to provide the trial court an opportunity to enter an order in compliance with E.A.R., or, if the trial court cannot, impose the probation recommended by the DJJ”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.W. v. State, 135 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…and J.B.S. v. State, 90 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We reverse the second issue based upon the State’s confession of error, and we remand for the trial court to make written findings in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d). See K.M.H. v. State, 91 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
-
R.L.C. v. State, 241 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
R.S. C. v. State, 157 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…best served by such placement”). We remand for the trial court to make written findings to support its placement decision, or if it is unable to do so, to resentence Appellant. See P.W. v. State, 135 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); K.M.H. v. State, 91 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). AFFIRMED in part: REVERSED in part: REMANDED with directions. PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- C.M.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)