Y.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Y.A. v. State

197 So. 3d 1180, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10603, 2016 WL 3690611

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2016

DocketNo. 3D16-1582

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 1180 (Y.A. 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

Y.A. v. State, 197 So. 3d 1180, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10603, 2016 WL 3690611 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.'

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Y.A., a juvenile, challenges the trial court’s order of secure detention, which was based upon a Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) prepared by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Specifically, the DRAI calculated Y.A.’s risk assessment score at twelve points, a score that Y.A. contends the trial court improperly relied upon in ordering Y.A. to secure detention.¹

[1181]*1181In calculating Y.A.’s score on, the DRAI, the DJJ assigned points based upon Y.A.’s most serious current offense (seven points); any other separate but pending offenses (zero); prior history of adjudication or adjudication withheld (two); and legal status (two). These assessments totaled eleven points, warranting non-secure or home detention. However,, the DJJ assessed one point for “Aggravating Circumstances,” and explained, on the last page of the DRAI, the basis for this additional point: “The youth has an extremely unusual amount of prior offenses. The Juvenile has unusual amount of .prior offenses.” ²

The DRAI was presented to the trial court during the detention hearing. The trial court found that secure detention was appropriate, but Y.A.’s counsel challenged the calculations and specifically contended that the additional point for Aggravating Circumstances was .improper. The trial court did not directly address this objection, or make a finding that the additional one-point assessment for Aggravating Circumstances was warranted based upon Y.A.’s “extremely unusual amount of prior offenses.” Instead, the trial court indicated it was ordering secure detention based on the fact that Y.A. was on probation and allegedly violated that probation by being arrested on this new charge. This was an improper basis upon which to order secure detention, as the DRAI already took into account, and assessed points for, the petitioner’s ‘legal status” (i,e., being on probation) at the time of his arrest. Therefore, utilizing'Y.A.’s . probationary status as a basis for assessing an additional point as an Aggravating Circumstance would be an impermissible double scoring. See, e.g., D.G. v. Miles, 872 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

We therefore grant the writ, withhold its formal issuance, quash the order of secure detention and remand with directions to hold an expedited ‘detention hearing. This order shall take effect immediately, notwithstanding the filing' of’any motion for rehearing or other post-decision motion.

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

EMAS, J.'

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Y.A., a juvenile, challenges the trial court’s order of secure detention, which was based upon a Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) prepared by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Specifically, the DRAI calculated Y.A.’s risk assessment score at twelve points, a score that Y.A. contends the trial court improperly relied upon in ordering Y.A. to secure detention.¹

[1181]*1181In calculating Y.A.’s score on, the DRAI, the DJJ assigned points based upon Y.A.’s most serious current offense (seven points); any other separate but pending offenses (zero); prior history of adjudication or adjudication withheld (two); and legal status (two). These assessments totaled eleven points, warranting non-secure or home detention. However,, the DJJ assessed one point for “Aggravating Circumstances,” and explained, on the last page of the DRAI, the basis for this additional point: “The youth has an extremely unusual amount of prior offenses. The Juvenile has unusual amount of .prior offenses.” ²

The DRAI was presented to the trial court during the detention hearing. The trial court found that secure detention was appropriate, but Y.A.’s counsel challenged the calculations and specifically contended that the additional point for Aggravating Circumstances was .improper. The trial court did not directly address this objection, or make a finding that the additional one-point assessment for Aggravating Circumstances was warranted based upon Y.A.’s “extremely unusual amount of prior offenses.” Instead, the trial court indicated it was ordering secure detention based on the fact that Y.A. was on probation and allegedly violated that probation by being arrested on this new charge. This was an improper basis upon which to order secure detention, as the DRAI already took into account, and assessed points for, the petitioner’s ‘legal status” (i,e., being on probation) at the time of his arrest. Therefore, utilizing'Y.A.’s . probationary status as a basis for assessing an additional point as an Aggravating Circumstance would be an impermissible double scoring. See, e.g., D.G. v. Miles, 872 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

We therefore grant the writ, withhold its formal issuance, quash the order of secure detention and remand with directions to hold an expedited ‘detention hearing. This order shall take effect immediately, notwithstanding the filing' of’any motion for rehearing or other post-decision motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 1180, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10603, 2016 WL 3690611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ya-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack