S.C.E., The Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Florida District Court of Appeal
· April 12, 2012 · Docket No. 1D11-5765
84 So. 3d 474
Syllabus
S.C.E., The Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 1D11-5765. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. April 12, 2012. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Full Opinion (1,360 characters)
PER CURIAM. Appellant, S.C.E., challenges the trial court’s order committing him to a moderate-risk residential program and argues that the court erred in deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation of probation by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and, therefore, reverse. In doing so, we reject the State’s argument that, because the Department’s recommendation of probation differed from the recommendation set forth in the comprehensive evaluation, E.A.R. is not applicable in this case. Although a determination that the Department overlooked or failed to sufficiently consider the evaluation’s recommendation may be a sufficient basis for the trial court to deviate from the Department’s recommendation, the trial court must still make the findings required by E.AR. before deviating from that recommendation. See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also S.W. v. State, 26 So.3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate-risk placement or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of probation. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.