R.R.R., 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.
In this juvenile delinquency appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed R.R.R.'s adjudication as delinquent for aggravated assault but reversed the commitment level determination, holding that the trial court failed to properly apply the two-pronged disposition process and must reconsider the appropriate restrictiveness level for commitment.
The court affirmed R.R.R.'s delinquency adjudication and commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice, but reversed the determination of the commitment level. The court held that when a juvenile court disagrees with the DJJ's commitment level recommendation, it must make specific findings on the record explaining why a different level is appropriate, considering the characteristics of competing restrictiveness levels and why the chosen level better serves the child's needs and public protection.
[1] A juvenile court must make specific findings to support its decision to adjudicate a child delinquent and commit them to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
[2] When a juvenile court rejects the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation regarding the level of commitment, it must state on the record reasons establishing by a…
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“When a juvenile court concludes that a child has committed a crime, it begins a two-pronged disposition process. First, it determines whether the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the DJJ.”
Establishes the framework that juvenile disposition has two distinct phases that must be addressed separately
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.R.R. was on juvenile probation for resisting an officer without violence when the State filed a petition alleging two aggravated assaults with a dea…
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
While R.R.R. was on juvenile probation for resisting an officer without violence, the State filed a new petition alleging that he committed two aggravated assaults with a deadly weapon. The circuit court held a disposition hearing, found that R.R.R. had committed the charged assaults, and adjudicated him delinquent. We disagree with R.R.R.’s complaint that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he used a deadly weapon, and we will not discuss it further. But he is entitled to a new hearing to establish the appropriate level of commitment for his offenses.
*1085Following the disposition hearing, the court rejected the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice that R.R.R. be placed on probation. The judge made specific findings in support of his decision to commit R.R.R. to a moderate risk residential program for the aggravated assaults until his nineteenth birthday and to commit him to the same program for one year for the violation of his probation. After this appeal was filed, the public defender filed a motion to correct a sentencing error, Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(2). She pointed out that the court, after rejecting the DJJ’s probation recommendation, had not obtained a commitment report containing the Department’s position on the most appropriate restrictiveness level and treatment plan for R.R.R. The court granted the public defender’s motion, whereupon the DJJ recommended that R.R.R. be committed to a minimum-supervision facility. The court again rejected the DJJ’s recommendation based on the findings it had made after the disposition hearing.
When a juvenile court concludes that a child has committed a crime, it begins a two-pronged disposition process. First, it determines whether the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the DJJ. § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2013). That statute lists criteria for assessing the advisability of committing the child, and the court must make specific findings.outlining factors that support an adjudication and commitment. § 985.433(7).
Here, the circuit court’s stated reasons were sufficient to support its decision to adjudicate R.R.R. delinquent and to commit him to the DJJ. But those findings did not pertain to the second prong of the disposition process, in which the court must determine the appropriate level of commitment. If a court disagrees with the DJJ’s recommendation in this regard, it must state on the record reasons that establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, why a different commitment level is appropriate. § 985.433(7)(b). As our supreme .court has explained, the court must first show that it is familiar with the characteristics of the competing restrictiveness levels including “the type of child that each restrictiveness level is designed to serve, the potential ‘lengths of stay’ associated with each level, and the divergent treatment programs and services available to the juvenile” at the various levels. E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614, 638 (Fla.2009). Then it must explain why its preferred level of commitment is better suited to the needs of the child and the protection of the public, while insuring that the child is given “the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.” Id. (quoting § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007)).
In R.R.R.’s case the State properly concedes that the circuit court’s findings related solely to the first prong of the disposition process. The court did not address the differences between the minimum commitment level recommended by DJJ and the moderate commitment level that was imposed. Nor did it explain why a moderate commitment would better meet R.R.R.’s needs and the needs of the public and was the most appropriate, least-restrictive setting. We affirm R.R.R.’s delinquency adjudication and commitment to the DJJ, but we reverse the court’s determination of the commitment level and remand for it to make a proper determination employing the E.A.R. guidelines.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.