S.C.E. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.C.E. v. State

84 So. 3d 474, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5604, 2012 WL 1231517

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-5765

StatusPublished

This text of 84 So. 3d 474 (S.C.E. 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

S.C.E. v. State, 84 So. 3d 474, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5604, 2012 WL 1231517 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, S.C.E., challenges the trial court’s order committing him to a moderate-risk residential program and argues that the court erred in deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and, therefore, reverse. In doing so, we reject the State’s argument that, because the Department’s recommendation of probation differed from the recommendation set forth in the comprehensive evaluation, E.A.R. is not applicable in this case. Although a determination that the Department overlooked or failed to sufficiently consider the evaluation’s recommendation may be a sufficient basis for the trial court to deviate from the Department’s recommendation, the trial court must still make the findings required by E.AR. before deviating from that recommendation. See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also S.W. v. State, 26 So.3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate-risk placement or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, S.C.E., challenges the trial court’s order committing him to a moderate-risk residential program and argues that the court erred in deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and, therefore, reverse. In doing so, we reject the State’s argument that, because the Department’s recommendation of probation differed from the recommendation set forth in the comprehensive evaluation, E.A.R. is not applicable in this case. Although a determination that the Department overlooked or failed to sufficiently consider the evaluation’s recommendation may be a sufficient basis for the trial court to deviate from the Department’s recommendation, the trial court must still make the findings required by E.AR. before deviating from that recommendation. See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also S.W. v. State, 26 So.3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate-risk placement or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 3d 474, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5604, 2012 WL 1231517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sce-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack