K.M.W.
v.
STATE
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 trial court is not required to explain its reasons for departing from a Department of Juvenile Justice recommendation in deciding whether to commit a juvenile to secure detention, even when DJJ recommends probation; findings are required only when the court departs from the recommended restrictiveness level of commitment.
[1] A trial court is not required to state findings explaining its reasons for departing from a Department of Juvenile Justice recommendation in deciding the initial question…
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 intelligenceK.M.W., a child, was subject to a commitment decision by the Orange County Circuit Court. The trial court committed the juvenile to secure detention 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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED K.M.W., A CHILD, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-1735 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 12, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Sally D.M. Kest, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kristen D. Dukes, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See D.R. v. State, 178 So. 3d 478, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that explaining trial court’s reasons for departure from DJJ recommendation is not required for court’s initial decision of whether to commit juvenile even when DJJ recommends probation; findings are required only when court departs from recommended restrictiveness level of commitment); see also D.G. v. State, 170 So. 3d 1,
3-4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); J.B.S. v. State, 90 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dowdell v. State, 90 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- D.R. v. State, 178 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- D.G. v. State, 170 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)