A.G., 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 minor appealed her delinquency disposition committing her to a moderate-risk facility, arguing the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements before deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation of probation. The appellate court affirmed the delinquency adjudication but reversed the commitment, remanding for further proceedings with proper multidisciplinary assessment.
The trial court did not err under E.A.R. v. State in its initial determination to commit the juvenile to the Department, but it erred by failing to request an additional multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report before determining that moderate-risk placement was appropriate.
[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's commitment of a juvenile to a moderate-risk facility may be reversed if the court fails to comply with statutory requirements regarding predisposition rep…
Previewing 2 of 3 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, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court must obtain proper input from the Department before determining restrictiveness level
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2010, A.G. pleaded no contest to trespass and resisting an officer and was placed on probation. She absconded that year. In 2013, she admitted to p…
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, A.G., challenges a delinquency disposition order adjudicating her delinquent and committing her 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. Because the Department did not have sufficient input regarding the appropriate restrictiveness level for Appellant, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In 2010, Appellant pled no contest to trespass in an occupied structure and resisting an officer without violence, and she was placed on probation. Appellant absconded from probation later that year. In 2013, she admitted to violating her probation. The predisposition report indicated that Appellant had not lived with any family members since she ran away from her father’s home in 2010, that she failed to complete any terms of prior probation, and that she had charges pending under a false name in another county. The Department concluded that Appellant was a moderate risk to reoffend, and it recommended placing her on probation. At the disposition hearing, the State objected to the recommendation and asked the court to place Appellant in a moderate-risk facility. Based on the predisposition report and the testimony presented, the court determined that probation did not sufficiently address Appellant’s need for supervision and protection, and it committed Appellant to a moderate-risk facility.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements in E.A.R. when it placed her 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 *701trial 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.
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.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
CLARK, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.B. v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…ents set forth in E.A.R. given that the Department did not recommend a restrictiveness level, it did err in ordering a level of commitment without requesting a further multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report); A.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 700, 700–01 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (same); see also F.L.P. v. State, 292 So. 3d 791, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[T]he trial court erred by not requesting that the DJJ submit an additional [predisposition report] to determine the restrictiveness level for Ap…
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)