M.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.D. v. State

923 So. 2d 556, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3690, 2006 WL 664329

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2006

DocketNo. 5D06-793

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 923 So. 2d 556 (M.D. 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

M.D. v. State, 923 So. 2d 556, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3690, 2006 WL 664329 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the trial court revoked home detention and remanded Petitioner to secure detention despite a score of zero on Petitioner’s risk assessment instrument. In response, the State has conceded these facts, and agrees that the writ should issue as the trial court has not articulated written reasons in its detention order for the more restrictive placement. See § 985.215(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“If the court orders a placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of the risk assessment instrument, the court shall state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for such placement.”); C.D.T. v. State, 920 So.2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb.16, 2006). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The trial court may revisit the issue if there is an appro[557]*557priate basis to do so. Id.; D.B. v. State, 848 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Petition GRANTED.

THOMPSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the trial court revoked home detention and remanded Petitioner to secure detention despite a score of zero on Petitioner’s risk assessment instrument. In response, the State has conceded these facts, and agrees that the writ should issue as the trial court has not articulated written reasons in its detention order for the more restrictive placement. See § 985.215(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“If the court orders a placement more restrictive than indicated by the results of the risk assessment instrument, the court shall state, in writing, clear and convincing reasons for such placement.”); C.D.T. v. State, 920 So.2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb.16, 2006). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The trial court may revisit the issue if there is an appro[557]*557priate basis to do so. Id.; D.B. v. State, 848 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Petition GRANTED.

THOMPSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 So. 2d 556, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3690, 2006 WL 664329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/md-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack