Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2002

S.S.M. v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 3, 2002 · Peterson, Pleus, Thompson

814 So. 2d 1234; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6022 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

GL v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
G.L. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
CML v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
C.M.L. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
F.T. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
XH v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
X.H. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
KRT v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
TN v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
K.R.T. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
T.N. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
KS v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
K.S. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
SSM v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

S.S.M. was committed to a level 8, high-risk residential program. This commitment ignored the recommendations of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).

A trial court may disregard the recommendations of the DJJ in a juvenile proceeding. See § 985.23(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001). However, when the recommendations are disregarded, the court must state the reasons for doing so, including making reference to the characteristics of the re*1235strictiveness level and the needs of the child. A.G. v. State, 737 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The reasons given for imposing a level 8 program here were that the minor appeared to be out of control and disrespectful to her mother. The court made no reference to the level 8 restrictiveness level or how such a level served the needs of S.S.M. Furthermore, considering the offenses committed by S.S.M. (resisting arrest without violence and disrupting a school class), it is unlikely that such a commitment was necessary to protect the “public safety.” § 985.03(45)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).

We vacate the commitment order and remand for sentencing in accordance with the DJJ recommendations or a sentence that is justified by the record with stated reasons. The commitment order should also indicate the term of sentence; the order appealed committed S.S.M. for an indefinite period.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.