Department of Juvenile Justice v. State of Florida

151 So. 3d 561, 2014 WL 6997155
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 11, 2014
Docket1D14-3007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 561 (Department of Juvenile Justice v. State of Florida) 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
Department of Juvenile Justice v. State of Florida, 151 So. 3d 561, 2014 WL 6997155 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

WOLF, J.

The Department of Juvenile Justice filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order entered by a circuit court judge concerning juvenile eases before that judge. The order required that “if the Department of Juvenile Justice ultimately recommends probation versus commitment in the PDR [predisposition report], the PDR must also include the restrictiveness level recommendation that would meet the child’s needs if the Court ... determines the child is to be committed.” We find this order contravenes section 985.433, Florida Statutes, by combining the two-step process set forth in subsections 985.433(6) and (7). See B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (finding there is a “two-part process for juvenile dispositions, as set out in section 985.433(6) and (7), Florida Statutes”); J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding the court properly “structured the proceeding as a two-step process in compliance with sections 985.433(6) and (7)(b)”). By contravening the statute, the circuit court judge violated the separation of powers doctrine and thereby acted in excess of his jurisdiction. See State, Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So.2d 1376, 1378-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While the Legislature may want to consider whether combining the current two-step process would be more efficient, that is the prerogative of the Legislature, not the circuit court. Accordingly, we GRANT the peti *562 tion for writ of certiorari and QUASH the order.

THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

D.R., a Child v. State of Florida
178 So. 3d 478 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 So. 3d 561, 2014 WL 6997155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-juvenile-justice-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2014.