D.R.B., JR., 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.
The court reversed a trial court's departure from the Department of Juvenile Justice's commitment recommendation because the trial court failed to adequately explain its reasoning with reference to the child's needs or the Department's factors.
A trial court departing from the Department's commitment recommendation must support its decision with competent, substantial evidence and explain how its reasoning differs from the Department's analysis.
[1] A trial court departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice's commitment recommendation for reasons not considered by the Department must support its decision with co…
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 intelligenceD.R.B., Jr., a child, was adjudicated delinquent and the trial court imposed a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice that departed from the…
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 Appellate Review Of Trial Court Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
D.R.B., Jr., a child, appeals from his adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Because the trial court erred in departing from the Department’s commitment recommendation, we reverse.
A trial court’s decision to depart from the Department’s commitment recommendation for reasons not considered by the Department must be supported by competent, substantial record evidence, and the trial court’s reasons* must reference the characteristics' of the restrictiveness level in relation to the needs of the child. A.C.N. v. State, 727 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Where the trial court’s departure is based on evidence or factors considered by the Department, the trial court must explain why such evidence led the court to reach a different conclusion than the Department. E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In this case, reversal is warranted because the trial court failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why factors considered by the Department led the trial court to a different conclusion.
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but reverse the trial court’s disposition and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.B. v. State, 911 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ential facility rather than on probation. “[Rjeversal is warranted because the trial court failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why factors considered by the Department led the trial court to a different conclusion.” D.R.B. v. State, 876 So. 2d 700, 700-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). See also S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); E.S.B., 822 So. 2d at 581; S.L.K v. State, 776 So. 2d 1062, 1063-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1247-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); A.C.N…
-
J.L.K. v. State, 894 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…omply with the dictates of A.C.N. v. State, 727 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), because the trial court failed to reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness levels in relation to the needs of the child. See also D.R.B., Jr., v. State, 876 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In C.C.B. the court gave the following reasons for departure: The trial court, in departing from the DJJ’s recommendation, stated that “these particular types of offenses,” or…
-
C.J. v. State, 923 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…rt erred because it failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why its consideration of the evidence led to a different conclusion than that recommended by the Department. S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); D.R.B. v. State, 876 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The trial court’s reasons for disagreement were a restatement of facts already known to the Department without an explanation of the reasons for coming to a different conclusion. The State argues that the trial court found tha…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of A.C.N. v. State, 727 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)