R.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.D. v. State

742 So. 2d 255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5000, 1997 WL 240913

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3408

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 742 So. 2d 255 (R.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

R.D. v. State, 742 So. 2d 255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5000, 1997 WL 240913 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this case, a juvenile, was charged with aggravated battery and trespass in a conveyance. He pled guilty to the lesser included offense of battery and guilty as charged to the trespass charge. The Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a predisposition report recommending community control. However, at the disposition hearing, the trial court rejected this recommendation and instead imposed a high risk commitment. Because the court did so without first securing another recommendation from the Department as to restrictiveness level, its order violated the dictates of section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes. We therefore vacate the disposition order and remand for further proceedings. S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); K.Y.L. and N.L. v. State, 685 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Vacated and remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this case, a juvenile, was charged with aggravated battery and trespass in a conveyance. He pled guilty to the lesser included offense of battery and guilty as charged to the trespass charge. The Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a predisposition report recommending community control. However, at the disposition hearing, the trial court rejected this recommendation and instead imposed a high risk commitment. Because the court did so without first securing another recommendation from the Department as to restrictiveness level, its order violated the dictates of section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes. We therefore vacate the disposition order and remand for further proceedings. S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); K.Y.L. and N.L. v. State, 685 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Vacated and remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5000, 1997 WL 240913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rd-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack