¶1We have for review P.A. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D429, — So.2d —, 1998 WL 31505 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.30, 1998), wherein the First District Court of Appeal certified the following two questions:
1. DOES SECTION 924.051(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), APPLY IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?
2. DOES THE TRIAL JUDGE, ACTING AFTER A DISPOSITION HEARING AND BASED ON SPECIFIC REASONS, HAVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE DEPARTMENT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION?
¶2Id.We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
¶3We have since addressed these questions in State v. T.M.B., 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998)(question 1), and State v. E.D.P., No. 92,345, - So.2d -, 1998 WL 696947 (Fla. Oct. 8, 1998)(question 2). We answered the first question in the negative in T.M.B. and the second question in the affirmative in E.D.P. In accordance with our decisions in T.M.B. and E.D.P., we approve P.A. on the first issue, quash the district court’s decision on the second issue, and remand this case with directions to reinstate the sentence of the trial court.
¶4It is so ordered.
¶5concurring and dissenting.
¶6I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion dissenting to the denial of rehearing in State v. T.M.B., 716 So.2d 269, 271 (Fla.1998), as to the first question.
¶7I concur in the answer to the second question based upon State v. E.D.P., 92,345, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 696947 (Fla. Oct. 8, 1998), and would quash the district court’s decision on this issue.
¶8concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶9I agree with the majority’s answer to question one but disagree with the answer to question two.