C.L.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.L.C. v. State

863 So. 2d 397, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19544, 2003 WL 23008821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 4D03-4487

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 863 So. 2d 397 (C.L.C. 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

C.L.C. v. State, 863 So. 2d 397, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19544, 2003 WL 23008821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

C.L.C., a juvenile, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release to a less restrictive form of detention. Following an adjudication of delinquency, the trial court ordered that C.L.C. be held in secure detention pending dispositional placement in a high-risk residential program. The risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared in C.L.C.’s ease did not authorize secure detention. The trial court, however, provided clear and convincing written reasons for ordering secure detention pursuant to the “departure provision” of the juvenile detention statute. See § 985.215(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); J.J. v. Fryer, 765 So.2d 260, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA [398]*3982000) (concluding that departure provision provides “the authority to depart from an RAI and order more severe detention ... based on ‘clear and convincing reasons’ which the judge must state in writing”) (emphasis omitted). This case is distinguished from J.W. v. Leitner, 801 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the trial court did not attempt to avail itself of the “departure provision.”

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

C.L.C., a juvenile, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release to a less restrictive form of detention. Following an adjudication of delinquency, the trial court ordered that C.L.C. be held in secure detention pending dispositional placement in a high-risk residential program. The risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared in C.L.C.’s ease did not authorize secure detention. The trial court, however, provided clear and convincing written reasons for ordering secure detention pursuant to the “departure provision” of the juvenile detention statute. See § 985.215(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); J.J. v. Fryer, 765 So.2d 260, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA [398]*3982000) (concluding that departure provision provides “the authority to depart from an RAI and order more severe detention ... based on ‘clear and convincing reasons’ which the judge must state in writing”) (emphasis omitted). This case is distinguished from J.W. v. Leitner, 801 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the trial court did not attempt to avail itself of the “departure provision.”

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 397, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19544, 2003 WL 23008821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clc-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack