R.C., 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.
A juvenile appeals his delinquency disposition committing him to a moderate-risk facility, arguing the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for deviation from the Department's probation recommendation and failed to enter required written findings. The appellate court affirmed the delinquency adjudication but reversed the commitment disposition and remanded for proper procedures.
The trial court erred by failing to request an additional multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report before determining that moderate-risk placement was appropriate, and it erred in failing to enter written findings required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. The adjudication of delinquency was affirmed, but the commitment disposition was reversed and remanded.
[1] A trial court must request an additional multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report before determining that a moderate-risk placement is appropriate…
[2] A trial court must enter written findings when deviating from a Department's recommendation regarding a juvenile's placement.
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“Because the Department did not have sufficient input regarding the appropriate restrictiveness level for Appellant and because the court failed to make the statutorily required findings, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
The court's holding identifying the two primary errors warranting reversal of the disposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.C. was unsuccessful in a drug court program and pled no contest to trespass on school property and petit theft. The Department of Juvenile Justice d…
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 Juvenile Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, R.C., challenges a delinquency disposition order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to a moderate-risk facility. Appellant argues that the court erred by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), when it deviated from the Department’s recommendation of probation and that the court erred by failing to make written findings as required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Because the Department did not have sufficient input regarding the appropriate restrictiveness level for Appellant and because the court failed to make the statutorily required findings, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
After being unsuccessfully terminated from the drug court program, Appellant pled no contest to trespass on school property and to petit theft. The predisposition report discussed Appellant’s family and educational background and his drug addiction. The Department determined that Appellant was a low risk to reoffend, and it recommended placing Appellant on probation. During the disposition hearing, the State objected to the probation recommendation and asked the court to place Appellant in a moderate-risk facility. Based on the predisposition report and the testimony presented, the trial court determined that probation did not sufficiently address Appellant’s need for residential drug treatment, and it committed Appellant to a moderate-risk facility. The court declined to enter a written order stating the reasons for deviating from the Department’s recommendation.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements in E.A.R. when it placed him in a moderate-risk facility. As explained in B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), E.A.R. does not apply to the trial court’s initial determination of whether a juvenile should be committed to the Department. However, the trial court erred in failing to request an additional multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report, as the court did in J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), before it determined that a moderate-risk placement was appropriate for Appellant. Id. The trial court also erred in failing to enter a written order in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. K.M.H. v. State, 91 So.3d 262, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
We AFFIRM the adjudication of delinquency, but we REVERSE Appellant’s commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with B.K.A. and section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes.
CLARK, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Dowdell v. State, 90 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Scott v. State, 91 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- K.M.H. v. State, 91 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)