M.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.W. v. State

923 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3425, 2006 WL 565905

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-3543

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 923 So. 2d 552 (M.W. 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.W. v. State, 923 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3425, 2006 WL 565905 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this juvenile delinquency appeal challenges his commitment to a moderate risk residential facility. We agree that the trial court, in imposing an upward deviation from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation, failed to reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child. See N.B. v. State, 911 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Further, although the court referenced the aggressive nature of the appellant’s conduct, it made no finding that this behavior constituted a danger to society. See, e.g., Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing. As the appellant has not challenged the adjudication of delinquency, our reversal is directed only to that portion of the trial court’s order committing the appellant to a moderate risk facility.

ALLEN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this juvenile delinquency appeal challenges his commitment to a moderate risk residential facility. We agree that the trial court, in imposing an upward deviation from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation, failed to reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child. See N.B. v. State, 911 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Further, although the court referenced the aggressive nature of the appellant’s conduct, it made no finding that this behavior constituted a danger to society. See, e.g., Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing. As the appellant has not challenged the adjudication of delinquency, our reversal is directed only to that portion of the trial court’s order committing the appellant to a moderate risk facility.

ALLEN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3425, 2006 WL 565905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mw-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack