G.S.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.S.C. v. State

742 So. 2d 264, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7717, 1997 WL 370364

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4807

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 742 So. 2d 264 (G.S.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

G.S.C. v. State, 742 So. 2d 264, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7717, 1997 WL 370364 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a juvenile, entered a plea of guilty to two counts of trespass. The Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a predisposition report recommending community control but the trial court rejected that recommendation and imposed instead a low risk commitment followed by community control. Because the court did not first secure a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department, the court’s order of adjudication and commitment must be vacated. See R.A.M. v. State, 695 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); 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).

We reject the State’s argument that the appellant was required to preserve this issue for review according to the procedure in section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See R.A.M. supra; T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As in R.A.M., we certify the following question to the supreme court:

DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?

Reversed.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a juvenile, entered a plea of guilty to two counts of trespass. The Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a predisposition report recommending community control but the trial court rejected that recommendation and imposed instead a low risk commitment followed by community control. Because the court did not first secure a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department, the court’s order of adjudication and commitment must be vacated. See R.A.M. v. State, 695 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); 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).

We reject the State’s argument that the appellant was required to preserve this issue for review according to the procedure in section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See R.A.M. supra; T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As in R.A.M., we certify the following question to the supreme court:

DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?

Reversed.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 264, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7717, 1997 WL 370364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gsc-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack