J.L.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.L.F. v. State

717 So. 2d 563, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9425, 1998 WL 412705

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1998

DocketNo. 98-295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 563 (J.L.F. 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

J.L.F. v. State, 717 So. 2d 563, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9425, 1998 WL 412705 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s deviation from a recommended level 6 disposition to a level 8 commitment, without first seeking another recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice, relying on E.D.P. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D348 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.27, 1998). rev. granted, No. 92,345, 712 So.2d 1203 (Fla. May 19, 1998); 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 have recently rejected this argument in H.H. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1499, 712 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA June 19, 1998), where, as here, the trial court increased the restrictiveness level over that recommended by the Department, and stated on the record its reasons for such departure.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., and ORFINGER, M. Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s deviation from a recommended level 6 disposition to a level 8 commitment, without first seeking another recommendation from the Department of Juvenile Justice, relying on E.D.P. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D348 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.27, 1998). rev. granted, No. 92,345, 712 So.2d 1203 (Fla. May 19, 1998); 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 have recently rejected this argument in H.H. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1499, 712 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA June 19, 1998), where, as here, the trial court increased the restrictiveness level over that recommended by the Department, and stated on the record its reasons for such departure.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., and ORFINGER, M. Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 563, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9425, 1998 WL 412705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jlf-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack