N.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.R. v. State

22 So. 3d 859, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 2009

DocketNos. 5D08-4328, 5D08-4329

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 So. 3d 859 (N.R. 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

N.R. v. State, 22 So. 3d 859, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

N.R. appeals the final orders entered by the trial court adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to a high-risk, level 10 commitment program, rejecting the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) recommended sentence of Level 6, moderate-risk commitment program. As the State properly concedes, reversal is required.

The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), while this appeal was in the pipeline. In that case, the Supreme Court set forth a more rigorous analysis for a trial court to follow before it can depart from DJJ’s recommendation regarding placement. Understandably, the trial court’s explanation for departing from the recommendation of the DJJ is not in accordance with this newly articulated standard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order which complies with the requirements of E.A.R.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J. and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

N.R. appeals the final orders entered by the trial court adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to a high-risk, level 10 commitment program, rejecting the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) recommended sentence of Level 6, moderate-risk commitment program. As the State properly concedes, reversal is required.

The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), while this appeal was in the pipeline. In that case, the Supreme Court set forth a more rigorous analysis for a trial court to follow before it can depart from DJJ’s recommendation regarding placement. Understandably, the trial court’s explanation for departing from the recommendation of the DJJ is not in accordance with this newly articulated standard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order which complies with the requirements of E.A.R.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J. and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 3d 859, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nr-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack