¶1A.R., a juvenile, appeals his commitment, arguing that proper procedures were not followed in the commitment’s imposition. We reverse.
¶2A.R. pleaded guilty to petit theft. He committed this crime on February 25, 1997,
¶3We affirm A.R.’s adjudication of delinquency without discussion. We reverse A.R.’s commitment, however, to allow the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the department as to restrictiveness level. See S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that, where the department recommends community control for a juvenile, the trial court is required to receive and consider a further restrictiveness-level recommendation before ordering the juvenile’s commitment).
¶4We accordingly affirm A.R.’s adjudication of delinquency, reverse A.R.’s commitment, and remand for another recommendation from the department.
¶5. AR was fifteen at the time of the instant crime.