M.T.G. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.T.G. v. State

165 So. 3d 871, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9749, 2015 WL 3930230

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-5871

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 871 (M.T.G. 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.T.G. v. State, 165 So. 3d 871, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9749, 2015 WL 3930230 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

M.T.G. appeals the trial court’s disposition order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a low-risk residential program. He argues that the trial .court improperly departed from the Department’s recommendation of probation without providing sufficient reasons in violation of E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), and by imposing commitment without input from the Department on the appropriate restrictiveness level. Resolution of both issues is controlled by our decision in B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s decision to adjudicate Appellant delinquent, but as conceded by the State on the second issue, we REVERSE the particulars of the commitment and REMAND with instructions for the trial court to receive a recommendation from the Department regarding a restrictiveness level before committing Appellant.

LEWIS, C.J., RAY and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

M.T.G. appeals the trial court’s disposition order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a low-risk residential program. He argues that the trial .court improperly departed from the Department’s recommendation of probation without providing sufficient reasons in violation of E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), and by imposing commitment without input from the Department on the appropriate restrictiveness level. Resolution of both issues is controlled by our decision in B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s decision to adjudicate Appellant delinquent, but as conceded by the State on the second issue, we REVERSE the particulars of the commitment and REMAND with instructions for the trial court to receive a recommendation from the Department regarding a restrictiveness level before committing Appellant.

LEWIS, C.J., RAY and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 871, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9749, 2015 WL 3930230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtg-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack