SSM v. State, 5D01-1054.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-1054.,5D01-1054. |
| Citation | 814 So.2d 1234 |
| Parties | S.S.M., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Scott Ragan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alfred Washington, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
S.S.M. was committed to a level 8, high-risk residential program. This commitment ignored the recommendations of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
A trial court may disregard the recommendations of the DJJ in a juvenile proceeding. See § 985.23(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001). However, when the recommendations are disregarded, the court must state the reasons for doing so, including making reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child. A.G. v. State, 737 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The reasons given for imposing a level 8 program here were that the minor appeared to be out of control and disrespectful to her mother. The court made no reference to the level 8 restrictiveness level or how such a level served the needs of S.S.M. Furthermore, considering the offenses committed by S.S.M. (resisting arrest without violence and disrupting a school class), it is unlikely that such a commitment was necessary to protect the "public safety." § 985.03(45)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).
We vacate the commitment order and remand for sentencing in accordance with the DJJ recommendations or a sentence that is justified by the record with stated reasons. The commitment order should also indicate the term of sentence; the order appealed committed S.S.M. for an indefinite period.
ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CML v. State, 5D03-544.
...of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child. L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla.1998); S.S.M. v. State, 814 So.2d 1234, 1234-1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Our standard of appellate review in such cases is whether the trial court abused its discretion. M.P. v. State, 832 So.2d 87......
-
G.L. v. State, 5D05-4428.
...T.N. v. State, 929 So.2d 1133, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); C.M.L. v. State, 895 So.2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); S.S.M. v. State, 814 So.2d 1234, 1234-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The court cannot depart from the DJJ's recommendation merely because it disagrees with it. C.M.L., 895 So.2d at 496......
-
T.N. v. State
...the reasons, and also make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child. S.S.M. v. State, 814 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); A.G. v. State, 737 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA The judge in this case considered the nature of the crime committed by T.N., ......
- X.H. v. State, No. 5D07-3732.