D.B.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.B.B. v. State

505 So. 2d 584, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1009, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1987

DocketNo. 86-517

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 584 (D.B.B. 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.B.B. v. State, 505 So. 2d 584, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1009, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

D.B.B. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the disposition ordered by the trial court.

The state filed two delinquency petitions charging D.B.B. with grand theft auto. He entered written pleas of nolo contendere. A predisposition report was submitted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services recommending D.B.B. be committed. The report failed to list three placement options for ranking by the trial court as mandated by Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida. Statutes (1985). Consequently, we must remand for compliance with that statute. See J.S.M. v. State, 505 So.2d 583, (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

D.B.B.’s other arguments are without merit. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but we reverse the court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(3)(e).

CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

D.B.B. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the disposition ordered by the trial court.

The state filed two delinquency petitions charging D.B.B. with grand theft auto. He entered written pleas of nolo contendere. A predisposition report was submitted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services recommending D.B.B. be committed. The report failed to list three placement options for ranking by the trial court as mandated by Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida. Statutes (1985). Consequently, we must remand for compliance with that statute. See J.S.M. v. State, 505 So.2d 583, (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

D.B.B.’s other arguments are without merit. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but we reverse the court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(3)(e).

CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 584, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1009, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dbb-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack