Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

689 So. 2d 1265

Docket No. 96-3404.

OM v. State

O.M., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-03-19

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2010

12 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes, unequivocally requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the Department as to restrictiveness level before ordering commitment.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 712 So. 2d 1229 - JPC v. State, 720 So. 2d 255 - JDB v. State

Relies on In the Interest of S.R. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-03-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Ward L. Metzger, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant was adjudicated delinquent for committing the offense of battery on a school board employee. The Department of Juvenile Justice had filed a predisposition report recommending that the appellant be placed on community control, but the trial court rejected the recommendation and imposed a low risk commitment without receiving a further recommendation from the department as to restrictiveness level. This was error. In S.R. v. State,683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we held that "section 39.052(4)(e)2, Florida Statutes, unequivocally requires the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the Department as to restrictiveness level before ordering commitment." Consequently, we reverse the order of commitment and remand this case for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should follow the procedure dictated by section 39.052(4)(c), Florida Statutes.

¶5Reversed and Remanded.

¶6MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

/689/so2d/1265 · .json · Public domain