J.M., 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.
In this consolidated juvenile delinquency appeal, J.M. challenges a disposition order committing him to a level 8 (high-risk residential) placement when the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended level 6 placement. The court reversed one of three disposition orders, finding the trial court failed to adequately explain why it disregarded DJJ's recommendation and failed to address the child's actual needs.
A trial court may disregard DJJ's commitment recommendation only if it states reasons and specifically references the characteristics of the restrictiveness level in relation to the child's needs. Here, the trial court's citation to failures to appear was insufficient because it did not address J.M.'s actual needs or public safety concerns, which are the statutory basis for level 8 placement.
[1] A trial court must state its reasons and reference the characteristics of a restrictiveness level in relation to the child's needs when disregarding a juvenile justice de…
[2] A trial court's justification for disregarding a juvenile's commitment recommendation must be supported by the record.
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“To disregard DJJ's commitment recommendation a trial court must state its reasons and "must reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child."”
Establishes the legal standard for trial courts to override DJJ recommendations in juvenile commitment cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.M. was adjudicated delinquent in three separate cases. The Department of Juvenile Justice recommended level 6 commitment for him. The trial court, h…
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
PER CURIAM.
In this delinquency case consolidating three appeals, J.M. challenges a disposition order committing him to a level 8 placement despite the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation that he be committed to a level 6 placement. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.145(b)(1). We reverse the disposition order in case number 05-4367, but the disposition orders in case numbers 05-4368 and 05-4369 are affirmed.1
To disregard DJJ’s commitment recommendation a trial court must state its reasons and “must reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child.” A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). See also T.N. v. State, 929 So. 2d 1133, 1136-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); C.M.L. v. State, 895 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); T.S. v. State, 801 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, the trial court gave reasons, the primary one being J.M.’s failures to appear for hearings. The court, however, did not make reference to the characteristics of a level 8 program vis-a-vis J.M.’s needs. Indeed, the court did not mention JM.’s needs at all. The statutory definition of high-risk residential programs states that “[placement in programs at this level is prompted by a concern for public safety that outweighs placement in programs at lower commitment levels.” § 985.03(46)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). Nothing in this case indicates that the court was concerned about public safety with respect to J.M. Even the court’s gang comment— the evidentiary support for which is unclear — was directed toward keeping J.M. away from gang members rather than protecting the public from J.M. See A.W v. State, 862 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order in case number 05-4367 and remand for sentencing in accordance with the DJJ’s recommendation or a sentence that is justified by the record with stated reasons. See G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Appellant received sentences of time served in the latter two cases and makes no challenge to these dispositions on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- G.L. v. State, 937 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Hepburn v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 862 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- A.W. v. State, 862 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- T.S. v. State, 801 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- C.M.L. v. State, 895 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- O.L. v. State, 929 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- T.N. v. State, 929 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)