KC v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
KC v. State, 721 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: CMK v. State (fladistctapp, 2003-10-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." CMK v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new disposition hearing because the trial court gave no reasons for disregarding the Department's recommendation of a moderate-risk restrictiveness level and instead committed the appellant to a high-risk program), approved on other grounds, State v. T.M.B., 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998); see also K.C. v. State, 721 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court's disposition order and remanding because the trial court disregarded the Department's recommended sentence without providing its rea…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." C.M.K. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new disposition hearing because the trial court gave no reasons for disregarding the Department’s recommendation of a moderate-risk restrictiveness level and instead committed the appellant to a high-risk program), approved on other grounds, State v. T.M.B., 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998); see also K.C. v. State, 721 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing the trial court’s disposition order and remanding because the trial court disregarded the Department’s recommended sentence without providing i…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." KO v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See C.B. v. State, 706 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.") (citations omitted); see also A.G. v. State, 737 So.2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that "[i]f the trial court fails to make specific findings to support its determination and disregards the DJJ's recommendations without sufficient reasons, or there is no evidence in record that the court has considered the dispositional report, the cause must be reversed and remanded") (citing K.C. v. State, 721 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." K.O. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See C.B. v. State, 706 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required in disposition hearings.”) (citations omitted); see also A.G. v. State, 737 So.2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that “[i]f the trial court fails to make specific findings to support its determination and disregards the DJJ’s recommendations without sufficient reasons, or there is no evidence in record that the court has considered the dispositional report, the cause must be reversed and remanded”) (citing K.C. v. State, 721 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)).
K.C., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
97-00817.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov 18, 1998.
721 So. 2d 398
Whatley.
Published

[*399] David B. Falstad of Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

K.C., a juvenile, challenges the order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice. We find no error in the trial court's finding that he was delinquent. However, we must reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing because the trial court failed to comply with section 39.052(4), Florida Statutes (1995).

Section 39.052(4)(e) provides that if the trial court determines the child should be committed to the department, its reasons for such must be in writing or on the record. See K.M.T. v. State, 695 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Here, the trial court failed to make specific findings to support its determination on the record or in writing. See C.B. v. State, 706 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that strict compliance with statutory requirements is mandatory in disposition hearings). In addition, the trial court disregarded the sentence recommended by the department without providing its reasons. See § 39.052(4)(e)3., Fla. Stat. (1995); K.M.T., 695 So.2d 1309. We also note that the disposition report is not included in the record on appeal. Although the department made oral recommendations at the hearing, there is no evidence in the record that the trial court considered a disposition report as required by section 39.052(4)(a).

Reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, Concur.