D.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.A. v. State

959 So. 2d 1281, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10763, 2007 WL 2001523

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-6324

StatusPublished

This text of 959 So. 2d 1281 (D.A. 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

D.A. v. State, 959 So. 2d 1281, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10763, 2007 WL 2001523 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it deviated from the commitment-level placement recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice and ordered that Appellant provide a sample of his DNA. We find that the trial court’s deviation was based on an appropriate consideration, the need to protect the community, which was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See J.L.K. v. State, 894 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, the trial court erred [1282]*1282when it ordered a DNA sample. Section 943.325, Florida Statutes (2006), does not permit the trial court to order Appellant to provide a DNA sample subsequent to a conviction for possession of a firearm by a minor. See § 943.325(1)(b)(4) (DNA collection authorized only for a “felony” violation of chapter 790). Thus, the portion of D.A.’s sentence requiring him to submit DNA blood samples must be stricken. See K.H. v. State, 821 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The remaining portion of the sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

KAHN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it deviated from the commitment-level placement recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice and ordered that Appellant provide a sample of his DNA. We find that the trial court’s deviation was based on an appropriate consideration, the need to protect the community, which was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See J.L.K. v. State, 894 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, the trial court erred [1282]*1282when it ordered a DNA sample. Section 943.325, Florida Statutes (2006), does not permit the trial court to order Appellant to provide a DNA sample subsequent to a conviction for possession of a firearm by a minor. See § 943.325(1)(b)(4) (DNA collection authorized only for a “felony” violation of chapter 790). Thus, the portion of D.A.’s sentence requiring him to submit DNA blood samples must be stricken. See K.H. v. State, 821 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The remaining portion of the sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

KAHN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

959 So. 2d 1281, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10763, 2007 WL 2001523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/da-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack