State v. EDP
Decision Date | 08 October 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 92345.,92345. |
Citation | 724 So.2d 1144 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. E.D.P., a Child, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Kristina White, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Intake Division, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
We have for review E.D.P. v. State,23 Fla. L. Weekly D348, ___ So.2d ___, 1998 WL 25483(Fla. 1st DCAJan.27, 1998), wherein the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question:
DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT'S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?
Id.We have jurisdiction.Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.We answer the certified question in the affirmative and quash E.D.P.
E.D.P. pled guilty to possession of marijuana and the trial court adjudicated him delinquent.The Department of Juvenile Justice(DJJ) recommended community control in its predisposition report (PDR), but the trial court rejected the recommendation and committed E.D.P. to the custody of the DJJ at the "low-risk residential"1 restrictiveness level.2The trial court explained its reasons for ordering a residential program in lieu of the DJJ's community control recommendation:3
The district court reversed the order of commitment, holding that the trial court must remand the case to the DJJ for a second recommendation which specifically identifies a restrictiveness level,4 and certified the above question.5The State argues that this two-recommendation process is redundant and wasteful of judicial resources.We agree.
Section 39.052, Florida Statutes(Supp. 1996), governs disposition proceedings in juvenile delinquency cases and states in pertinent part:
Id.(emphasis added).The Second District Court of Appeal addressed this issue in D.L.B. v. State,707 So.2d 844(Fla. 2d DCA1998), wherein the trial court rejected the DJJ's community control recommendation and imposed a level-six restrictiveness commitment.The Second District, in D.L.B., disagreed with the First District's interpretation of the statute in the present case:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. JPC
...of great public importance by the First District in E.D.P. v. State, 728 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524, 724 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1998): DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMEN......
-
AHD v. State
...approve A.H.D. The issue raised in the instant conflict is the same issue that was presented to this Court in State v. E.D.P., 724 So.2d 1144, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524 (Fla.1998), wherein we addressed the following certified question of great public importance: DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AF......
-
JB v. State
...DCA 1998), based on conflict with E.D.P. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D348, 728 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S524, 724 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1998), and other cases.1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve J.B. The issue raised in the instant c......