D. G., PETITIONER,
v.
ADONIS MILES, DETENTION SUPERINTENDENT, 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.
A juvenile petitioner challenged his placement in secure detention after a trial court impermissibly double-scored his probationary status on the risk assessment instrument (RAI). The appellate court granted the habeas corpus petition, holding that double scoring for circumstances already quantified in the RAI violates statutory detention requirements.
The trial court erred in double-scoring D.G.'s probationary status. Because probationary status was already quantified in the RAI calculation, it cannot be used again as an aggravating factor to increase the score. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and D.G. is ordered released from secure detention.
[1] A juvenile's risk assessment instrument score cannot be aggravated based on factors already accounted for and quantified in the instrument.
[2] Determinations and court orders regarding a child's placement into detention care must comply with statutory requirements and criteria, including risk assessment.
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“The power to place those charged with, or found to have committed, a delinquent act in detention is entirely statutory in nature.”
Establishes that detention decisions are governed entirely by statute, not discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.G. was charged with drug offenses and appeared at a detention hearing. The trial court determined insufficient probable cause for the most serious c…
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 Risk Assessment Instrument (Rai) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
D.G., a juvenile, filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his placement in secure detention, asserting that the trial court erred in scoring his probationary status twice under subsection III of his risk assessment instrument (RAI). We previously determined that D.G. was entitled to be released from secure detention and granted the petition by unpublished order, stating an opinion would follow. We now issue this opinion to explain our reasons for granting the petition.
D.G. was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At his detention hearing, the trial court determined there was insufficient probable cause to sustain the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver and reduced the charge to possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony. The possession of cocaine offense, as the most serious current offense, resulted in a RAI score of seven points. For one previous offense with adjudication withheld, D.G. received a RAI score of one point. For legal status scoring on the RAI, one point was scored because D.G. had an active probation case in which adjudication was withheld more than ninety days previously. Thus, D.G.’s total RAI score should have been ten points. A RAI score of seven to eleven points requires nonsecure or home detention.
Here, the trial court scored the ten points, and then stated: “I’m going to aggravate him two points then to twelve ... because he’s on probation. He shouldn’t have been where he was.... ” D.G’s counsel objected because the fact that D.G. was on probation had been taken into account on the RAI; thus, the probationary status should not have been used again as an aggravating factor. But the court added two more points to the RAI, bringing D.G.’s total score to twelve. The court ordered D.G. held in secure detention, which the RAI allows when the score is twelve or more points.
“The power to place those charged with, or found to have committed, a delinquent act in detention is entirely statutory in nature.” S.W. v. Woolsey, 673 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Section 985.213(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), mandates that except in circumstances not relevant to this case, “[a]ll determinations and court orders regarding placement of a child into detention care shall comply with all requirements and criteria provided in this part and shall be based on a risk assessment of the child.”
Double scoring for circumstances already taken into account by the RAI is impermissible. N.W., 673 So. 2d at 155; P.A.J. v. Gnat, 684 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[R]isk assessment cannot be aggravated based on factors already accounted for and quantified in the RAI.”).
Accordingly, we granted D.G.’s petition and ordered his immediate release from secure detention.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted.
FULMER, SILBERMAN, and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.B. v. State, 897 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the trial court erred in assessing him one point as an aggravating factor based on the finding of a “significant prior record” when petitioner had already been assessed one point in the prior history section of the RAI scoresheet. See D.G. v. Miles, 872 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); P.A.J. v. Gnat, 684 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. STONE, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
D.P. v. State, 8 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ession was already factored into the initial scoring of ten points, it could not be used again without impermissibly double scoring the same conduct already accounted for in the RAI. P.A.J. v. Gnat, 684 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); D.G. v. Miles, 872 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Consequently, D.P. was ineligible for secure detention because he scored less than twelve points. PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED. MONACO, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
K.T.E. v. Lofthiem, 915 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…lear which statute the trial court intended to apply when it issued the five-day detention order. Because the power to place juveniles charged with or found to have committed delinquent acts in secure detention is entirely statutory, D.G. v. Miles, 872 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and strict compliance with the statute is necessary, W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with either the contempt statute, section 985.216, or the secure det…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 673 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- In the Interest of P.A.J. v. Gnat, 684 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)