I. A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

I. A. v. State

163 So. 3d 671, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 2015 WL 1928619

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-5091

StatusPublished

This text of 163 So. 3d 671 (I. 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

I. A. v. State, 163 So. 3d 671, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 2015 WL 1928619 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

I.A. argues in this appeal that the trial court impermissibly committed him to a high-risk placement for two misdemeanor offenses. Because he- was on probation following guilty pleas to two counts of misdemeanor, battery and admitted only to [672]*672technical violations of probation, under section 985.441(2), Florida Statutes (2014), appellant could be committed, at the most, to a nonsecure residential placement. See D.H. v. State, 114 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Even under the changes made to section 985.441(2) during the 2014 Legislative, session, see Ch.2014-162, § 25, at 43, Laws of Fla. and Ch.2014-162, § 3, at 16, Laws of Fla., the court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk placement. As we did in D.H., we determine the commitment was contrary to law. The trial court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk facility even if it had set out its findings in writing. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

I.A. argues in this appeal that the trial court impermissibly committed him to a high-risk placement for two misdemeanor offenses. Because he- was on probation following guilty pleas to two counts of misdemeanor, battery and admitted only to [672]*672technical violations of probation, under section 985.441(2), Florida Statutes (2014), appellant could be committed, at the most, to a nonsecure residential placement. See D.H. v. State, 114 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Even under the changes made to section 985.441(2) during the 2014 Legislative, session, see Ch.2014-162, § 25, at 43, Laws of Fla. and Ch.2014-162, § 3, at 16, Laws of Fla., the court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk placement. As we did in D.H., we determine the commitment was contrary to law. The trial court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk facility even if it had set out its findings in writing. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 671, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 2015 WL 1928619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-a-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack