A.R.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.R.M. v. State

198 So. 3d 1132, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12796, 2016 WL 4470164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2016

DocketNo. 4D15-65

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 So. 3d 1132 (A.R.M. 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.

Bluebook

A.R.M. v. State, 198 So. 3d 1132, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12796, 2016 WL 4470164 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to a level 8 commitment for burglary and other charges. We understand the trial court’s frustration with appellant. During a weekend recess of his trial in this case, appellant was arrested for a new burglary charge, allegedly committed while he was wearing a monitoring device. At sentencing, the Department of Juvenile Justice Predisposition Report essentially recommended a level 6 commitment for this case. We reverse the sentence because the court failed to make the specific findings mandated by E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a court departing from a DJJ sentencing recommendation must:

(1) Articulate an understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels ... including (but not limited to) the type of child that each restrictiveness level is designed to serve, the potential “lengths of stay” associated with each level, and the divergent treatment programs and services available to the juvenile at these levels (the DJJ possesses the expertise to provide this information); and

(2) Then logically and persuasively explain why, in light of these differing characteristics, one level is better suited to serving both the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile — in the least restrictive setting — and maintaining the ability of the State to protect the public from further acts of delinquency.

Id. at 633. We also note that during sentencing, the court took into account appellant’s arrests without conviction that occurred after the crimes in this case. Although consistent with the law in this district at the time of sentencing, this violated appellant’s due process rights under the recent case of Norvil v. State, 191 So.3d 406 (Fla.2016).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

CIKLIN, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to a level 8 commitment for burglary and other charges. We understand the trial court’s frustration with appellant. During a weekend recess of his trial in this case, appellant was arrested for a new burglary charge, allegedly committed while he was wearing a monitoring device. At sentencing, the Department of Juvenile Justice Predisposition Report essentially recommended a level 6 commitment for this case. We reverse the sentence because the court failed to make the specific findings mandated by E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a court departing from a DJJ sentencing recommendation must:

(1) Articulate an understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels ... including (but not limited to) the type of child that each restrictiveness level is designed to serve, the potential “lengths of stay” associated with each level, and the divergent treatment programs and services available to the juvenile at these levels (the DJJ possesses the expertise to provide this information); and

(2) Then logically and persuasively explain why, in light of these differing characteristics, one level is better suited to serving both the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile — in the least restrictive setting — and maintaining the ability of the State to protect the public from further acts of delinquency.

Id. at 633. We also note that during sentencing, the court took into account appellant’s arrests without conviction that occurred after the crimes in this case. Although consistent with the law in this district at the time of sentencing, this violated appellant’s due process rights under the recent case of Norvil v. State, 191 So.3d 406 (Fla.2016).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

CIKLIN, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 1132, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12796, 2016 WL 4470164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arm-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack