A.H.D. v. State
This text of 715 So. 2d 1145 (A.H.D. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A.H.D, a child, asserts that the trial court erred when it did not request a juvenile justice recommendation on a restrictiveness level after rejecting the community control recommendation.
We affirm, and adopt the interpretation of the second district of section 39.052(4)(e)(2), Florida Statutes (1995):
We do not believe the statute requires the court, once it has already rejected the Department’s non-commitment recommendation to then ask the Department for a second recommendation. A request for a second recommendation would seem particularly unnecessary in view of section 39.052(4)(e)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), the next paragraph of the statute, which allows the court to reject the Department’s restrictiveness level recommendation provided that the court state for the record the reasons for its deviation from the Department’s recommendation.
D.L.B. v. State, 707 So.2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 717 So.2d 530 (Fla.1998). In doing so, we certify conflict with the first district’s position in B.D.W. v. State, 701 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved on other grounds, 717 So.2d 460 (Fla.1998); R.A.M. v. State, 695 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved on other grounds sub nom., State v. T.M.B., 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
715 So. 2d 1145, 1998 WL 518595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahd-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.