DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 First District Court of Appeal granted the Department of Juvenile Justice's petition for certiorari and quashed a circuit court order that improperly combined the two-step juvenile disposition process mandated by Florida Statutes section 985.433.
A circuit court order requiring the predisposition report to include a restrictiveness level recommendation contingent on commitment violates section 985.433 by improperly combining the statutory two-step disposition process.
[1] A circuit court order requiring a predisposition report to include a restrictiveness level recommendation contingent upon commitment violates section 985.433, Florida Sta…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“if the Department of Juvenile Justice ultimately recommends probation versus commitment in the PDR [predisposition report], the PDR must also include the restrictiveness level recommendation that would meet the child's needs if the Court ... determines the child is to be committed”
Description of the circuit court order that was found to violate the statute
The Department of Juvenile Justice challenged a circuit court order requiring that if the department recommends probation versus commitment in the pre…
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 Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Juvenile Justice filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order entered by a circuit court judge concerning juvenile eases before that judge. The order required that “if the Department of Juvenile Justice ultimately recommends probation versus commitment in the PDR [predisposition report], the PDR must also include the restrictiveness level recommendation that would meet the child’s needs if the Court ... determines the child is to be committed.” We find this order contravenes section 985.433, Florida Statutes, by combining the two-step process set forth in subsections 985.433(6) and (7). See B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (finding there is a “two-part process for juvenile dispositions, as set out in section 985.433(6) and (7), Florida Statutes”); J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding the court properly “structured the proceeding as a two-step process in compliance with sections 985.433(6) and (7)(b)”). By contravening the statute, the circuit court judge violated the separation of powers doctrine and thereby acted in excess of his jurisdiction. See State, Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So.2d 1376, 1378-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While the Legislature may want to consider whether combining the current two-step process would be more efficient, that is the prerogative of the Legislature, not the circuit court. Accordingly, we GRANT the peti*562tion for writ of certiorari and QUASH the order.
THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.R. v. State, 178 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ndings in support of commitment. It then followed the DJJ’s recommended restrictiveness level, eliminating the need to make E.A.R. findings. Affirmed. CIKLIN, C.J., and FORST, J., concur. . We are aware of Department of Juvenile Justice v. State, 151 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), where the ’First District quashed an omnibus order requiring the DJJ to recommend a restrictiveness level in all of its predisposition reports. Id. at 561. "By contravening the statute, the circuit court judge violated the separ…
Authorities Cited
- B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Dowdell v. State, 90 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- State v. A.C. Soud, Jr., 685 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)