R.V. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.V. v. State

107 So. 3d 535, 2013 WL 614077, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2787

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2013

DocketNo. 4D11-1753

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 3d 535 (R.V. 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.V. v. State, 107 So. 3d 535, 2013 WL 614077, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2787 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

R.V. appeals the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing and its disposition order placing him in a moderate risk commitment program. We affirm as to the former. As to the latter, R.Y. argues that the trial court erred in departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommended placement in a low risk commitment program because the trial court failed to comply with the requirements as [536]*536set forth in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and reverse.

The trial court committed R.V. to the moderate risk commitment program due to the nature of the offenses committed and because he presents a danger to himself and the community that could not be adequately addressed by a low risk facility. However, the trial court did not articulate why a moderate risk commitment program was better suited than the Department’s recommendation to serving R.V.’s rehabilitative needs, in the least restrictive setting, and protecting the public as E.A.R. requires. Id. at 638. On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate risk commitment program or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of a low risk commitment program.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

POLEN, GROSS, JJ., and SHAHOOD, GEORGE A., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

R.V. appeals the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing and its disposition order placing him in a moderate risk commitment program. We affirm as to the former. As to the latter, R.Y. argues that the trial court erred in departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommended placement in a low risk commitment program because the trial court failed to comply with the requirements as [536]*536set forth in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and reverse.

The trial court committed R.V. to the moderate risk commitment program due to the nature of the offenses committed and because he presents a danger to himself and the community that could not be adequately addressed by a low risk facility. However, the trial court did not articulate why a moderate risk commitment program was better suited than the Department’s recommendation to serving R.V.’s rehabilitative needs, in the least restrictive setting, and protecting the public as E.A.R. requires. Id. at 638. On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate risk commitment program or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of a low risk commitment program.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

POLEN, GROSS, JJ., and SHAHOOD, GEORGE A., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 3d 535, 2013 WL 614077, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rv-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack