BLR v. State
74 So. 3d 173
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Juvenile on post-commitment probation arrested for concealed handgun, weapon on school grounds, resisting without violence, and firearm possession by a delinquent.
- PDR recommended high-risk facility based on seriousness of new offenses and lack of probation adherence.
- DJJ recommended high-risk commitment; State argued for maximum-risk due to prior history and new offenses.
- Trial court committed Appellant to a maximum-risk facility, stating concerns about public safety and juvenile risk.
- E.A.R. standard requires articulated understanding of restrictiveness levels and reasoning tied to rehabilitative needs and public protection; PDR was insufficient for departure.
- Court reverses and remands for findings to support maximum-risk or to implement DJJ's high-risk recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly departed from DJJ’s recommendation | B.L.R. argues E.A.R. requires detailed reasoning. | State argues factors support maximum-risk due to history and new offenses. | Departure reversed; remand for proper findings. |
| Whether the PDR supported departure | PDR did not address why higher restriction best serves rehabilitative needs. | Court relied on offender’s risk to public. | Remand to supply legally sufficient basis. |
| Whether the trial court articulated understandings of restrictiveness levels | Court failed to place on record differences between levels. | Court’s concerns reflect safety considerations. | Remand for explicit articulation. |
| Whether harmless error applies given the context | N/A or not addressed in majority. | N/A or not addressed in majority. | Not resolved; remanded for proper findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009) (requires articulated reasoning for departure from DJJ recommendation)
- M.J.S. v. State, 6 So.3d 1268 (Fla.1st DCA 2009) (guides proper departure analysis under E.A.R.)
- N.B. v. State, 911 So.2d 833 (Fla.1st DCA 2005) (limits on departing from DJJ recommendation)
- C.C.T. v. State, 53 So.3d 1149 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (remand when E.A.R. analysis incomplete)
- C.M.H. v. State, 25 So.3d 678 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (reversals for lack of E.A.R. findings)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (requires meaningful review and appropriate standards)