B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928

Juvenile B.K.A. pled no contest to battery, grand theft, and burglary of a conveyance and the court ordered a predisposition report (PDR) from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
DJJ’s PDR assessed B.K.A. as a “Moderate” re-offense risk and recommended probation; it did not recommend any commitment or identify a restrictiveness level or offer an alternative commitment recommendation.
At disposition the state and defense agreed with DJJ’s probation recommendation; the juvenile’s mother testified that probation was insufficient due to recent misconduct (school suspension, arson, stealing, suspected marijuana use) that arose after the PDR.
The trial court adjudicated B.K.A. delinquent and committed him to DJJ for placement in a “low-risk” residential program followed by post-commitment probation, providing oral and written reasons for commitment.
On appeal the court affirmed the delinquency adjudications but reversed the commitment orders because DJJ had not recommended a restrictiveness level as required by statute, and the court proceeded to select a restrictiveness level without requesting further DJJ assessment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court permissibly committed the juvenile to a restrictiveness level different from DJJ’s recommendation	Court erred by committing to a different restrictiveness level without sufficient reasons in violation of statute and E.A.R.	Trial court acted within discretion to adjudicate and commit based on PDR and new testimony; reasons were stated	Court: adjudication and commitment to DJJ permissibly made, but selecting a specific restrictiveness level requires a DJJ recommendation; reversed commitments for lack of DJJ restrictiveness-level recommendation
Whether DJJ’s recommendation of “probation” satisfied statutory requirement to identify the most appropriate placement and restrictiveness level	Probation recommendation sufficed or court may substitute its judgment	Probation is not a restrictiveness level; DJJ must identify a restrictiveness level if court commits the child	Court: Probation is not a restrictiveness level; DJJ’s recommendation was insufficient to allow the court to finalize a commitment level without further DJJ assessment

E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (describing the two-step juvenile disposition process and requiring the court to state reasons when committing a child to DJJ)
J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (clarifying scope of trial court discretion at the initial determination and endorsing seeking further DJJ assessment when DJJ lacks a restrictiveness-level recommendation)