C.C.T. v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1444
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- C.C.T., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to a high-risk facility contrary to DJJ recommendation.
- State conceded the trial court failed to comply with E.A.R. v. State's requirements for departing from DJJ's recommendation.
- § 985.433(7)(b) requires the court to state reasons on the record for departing from the DJJ-recommended restrictiveness level.
- E.A.R. requires two inquiries: understand characteristics of competing restrictiveness levels and explain why the chosen level serves rehabilitative needs and public protection.
- The trial court did not articulate the restricted-level characteristics nor provide a logical, persuasive justification for selecting high-risk over moderate-risk.
- The court reversed and remanded to enter a compliant order, or, if not possible, impose the DJJ recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with E.A.R. before departing from DJJ. | C.C.T. argues noncompliance with E.A.R.'s two inquiries. | State concedes the order did not comply with E.A.R. | Noncompliance; remand for compliant order (or DJJ recommendation if not possible). |
| Remedy for noncompliance with E.A.R. | Remand to cure analysis on record. | If cure impossible, impose DJJ recommendation. | Remand for E.A.R. compliance or revert to DJJ recommendation. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (requires rigorous analysis before departing from DJJ’s recommendation)
- C.M.H. v. State, 25 So.3d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (two-step inquiry before departing from DJJ’s recommendation)
- T.M. v. State, 48 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (cited regarding appropriate relief when E.A.R. analysis was lacking)