MVK v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

MVK v. State

93 So. 3d 521, 2012 WL 3089400, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12322

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-1372

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 3d 521 (MVK 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

MVK v. State, 93 So. 3d 521, 2012 WL 3089400, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12322 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because Appellant’s counsel was unable to make a good-faith argument that reversible error occurred below. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court properly imposed a maximum-risk residential placement for Appellant, a minor who was adjudicated delinquent for committing grand theft auto and who had previously completed two different high-risk residential programs for other offenses. See § 985.494(1), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Notwithstanding any other law and regardless of the child’s age, a child who is adjudicated delinquent, or for whom adjudication is withheld, for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, shall be committed to a maximum-risk residential program if the child has completed two different high-risk residential commitment programs.”). The trial court correctly rejected the arguments raised below that it had to explain its reasons for deviating from the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice pursuant to E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), and that section 985.494 pertains only to juvenile sexual offenders. Both arguments are refuted by the plain language of the statute.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because Appellant’s counsel was unable to make a good-faith argument that reversible error occurred below. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court properly imposed a maximum-risk residential placement for Appellant, a minor who was adjudicated delinquent for committing grand theft auto and who had previously completed two different high-risk residential programs for other offenses. See § 985.494(1), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Notwithstanding any other law and regardless of the child’s age, a child who is adjudicated delinquent, or for whom adjudication is withheld, for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, shall be committed to a maximum-risk residential program if the child has completed two different high-risk residential commitment programs.”). The trial court correctly rejected the arguments raised below that it had to explain its reasons for deviating from the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice pursuant to E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), and that section 985.494 pertains only to juvenile sexual offenders. Both arguments are refuted by the plain language of the statute.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 3d 521, 2012 WL 3089400, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mvk-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack