¶1The appellant in this juvenile delinquency appeal challenges his commitment to a moderate risk residential facility. We agree that the trial court, in imposing an upward deviation from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation, failed to reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child. See N.B. v. State, 911 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Further, although the court referenced the aggressive nature of the appellant’s conduct, it made no finding that this behavior constituted a danger to society. See, e.g., Q.L.J. v. State, 714 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing. As the appellant has not challenged the adjudication of delinquency, our reversal is directed only to that portion of the trial court’s order committing the appellant to a moderate risk facility.
923 So. 2d 552
M.W. v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided March 10, 2006
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-03-10
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 2006
2 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The trial court must not only state its reasons for disregarding the recommended restrictiveness level on the record, the reasons must also be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and must make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the needs of the child,”
quoted by 1 later decision, including JK v. State
Relies on N.B. v. State · Q.L.J. v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2006-03-10
View the full empirical analysis of this case →