E.D.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.D.P. v. State

728 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 567, 1998 WL 25483

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2953

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 728 So. 2d 1173 (E.D.P. 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

E.D.P. v. State, 728 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 567, 1998 WL 25483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana. The Department of Juvenile Justice had filed a predisposition report recommending Appellant be placed on community control, but the trial court rejected the recommendation and imposed a low-risk commitment without receiving a further recommendation from the Department as to a restrictiveness level. This was an error. See J.P.M. v. State, 688 So.2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Consequently, we reverse the order of commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we certify the following as a question of great public importance:

DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana. The Department of Juvenile Justice had filed a predisposition report recommending Appellant be placed on community control, but the trial court rejected the recommendation and imposed a low-risk commitment without receiving a further recommendation from the Department as to a restrictiveness level. This was an error. See J.P.M. v. State, 688 So.2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Consequently, we reverse the order of commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we certify the following as a question of great public importance:

DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 1173, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 567, 1998 WL 25483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edp-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack