2025-1956•K.K.J., a child v. State of Florida
Texto completo
FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL S TATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2025-1956 _____________________________ K.K.J., a child, Appellant, v. S TATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Susanne Wilson Bullard, Judge. April 29, 2026 P ER C URIAM. Appellant, K.K.J., challenges the trial court’s order committing her to a high-risk residential commitment program after she pled no contest to grand theft of a firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, as interpreted in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009), when it departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommended placement within a moderate-risk program. Specifically, the trial court did not provide a “legally sufficient foundation” for disregarding the Department’s recommendation “by identifying significant information that the Department has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued” as to Appellant’s needs and the public risk she
2 poses. Id. at 638. The trial court’s generalized conclusions are insufficient to disregard the Department’s recommendation. See M.H. v. State, 69 So. 3d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“In order to deviate lawfully, a trial court must do more than place generalized reasons on the record; it must engage in a well-reasoned and complete analysis of the [predisposition report] and the type of facility to which the trial court intends to send the child.”); J.W.B. v. State, __ So. 3d __, 2026 WL 816515 at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 25, 2026) (same). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the disposition order for the trial court to provide sufficient reasons for deviating from the Department’s recommendation or, in the alternative, to impose the Department’s recommendation. State v. J. J., 359 So. 3d 863, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023); C.M.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). R EVERSED and REMANDED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR , JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D2025-1956 K.K.J., a child, Appellant, Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Susanne Wilson Bullard, Judge. April 29, 2026 PER CURIAM. Appellant, K.K.J., challenges the trial court’s order committing her to a high-risk residential commitment program after she pled no contest to grand theft of a firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, as interpreted in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009), when it departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommended placement within a moderate-risk program. Specifically, the trial court did not provide a “legally sufficient foundation” for disregarding the Department’s recommendation “by identifying significant information that the Department has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued” as to Appellant’s needs and the public risk she poses. Jd. at 638. The trial court’s generalized conclusions are insufficient to disregard the Department’s recommendation. See M.H. v. State, 69 So. 3d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“In order to deviate lawfully, a trial court must do more than place generalized reasons on the record; it must engage in a well-reasoned and complete analysis of the [predisposition report] and the type of facility to which the trial court intends to send the child.”); J.W.B. v. State, __ So. 8d __, 2026 WL 816515 at *1 (Fla. lst DCA, March 25, 2026) (same). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the disposition order for the trial court to provide sufficient reasons for deviating from the Department’s recommendation or, in the alternative, to impose the Department’s recommendation. State v. J. J., 359 So. 3d 863, 869 (Fla. lst DCA 2023); CLM.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. Ist DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.