M.J. v. State
212 So. 3d 534
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile M.J. admitted multiple probation violations; probation continued in Nov 2015 with requirement to complete the AMI program.
- In March 2016 M.J. admitted another violation for failing to attend AMI; the trial court directed the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) to prepare a pre-disposition report (PDR).
- The PDR rated M.J. "high risk," recommended continuation of probation as least restrictive, but (at the court’s request) offered a minimum-risk commitment alternative.
- At disposition the State asked for commitment to a nonsecure residential level; the court found probation and AMI inappropriate (M.J. feared others in AMI) and announced commitment to concurrent nonsecure residential placements, deviating from the Department’s minimum-risk recommendation.
- The trial court did not place E.A.R.-style findings on the record or enter a written order explaining understanding of restrictiveness levels; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with E.A.R. when deviating from the Department’s recommendation of minimum-risk commitment | M.J.: trial court failed to articulate required E.A.R. analysis and reasons supported by a preponderance of evidence, so deviation was reversible error | State: court implicitly relied on facts showing probation inappropriate and community/child welfare, so deviation was justified | Reversed: trial court did not make the required E.A.R. findings on the record (no articulation of restrictiveness-level characteristics or why nonsecure placement better), so remand for resentencing with required findings or commitment to Department’s recommended minimum-risk facility |
| Whether the initial rejection of probation itself required E.A.R. analysis | M.J.: (secondary) court’s rejection of probation should be scrutinized | State: initial suitability determination to commit falls within trial court discretion and E.A.R. does not apply to initial refusal of probation | Court: E.A.R. does not apply to the initial suitability determination under §985.433(6); E.A.R. applies when deviating from the Department’s recommended restrictiveness level |
Key Cases Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (sets strict requirements for departing from Department recommendations on restrictiveness level)
- B.L.R. v. State, 74 So.3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversal where trial court failed to articulate restrictiveness-level understanding and reasoning under E.A.R.)
- J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (E.A.R. analysis not required for initial suitability determination under §985.433(6))
- B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (probation is not a statutory restrictiveness level; E.A.R. not applicable to initial decision to reject probation)
- M.H. v. State, 69 So.3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial courts must place thorough, on-the-record analysis when deviating from Department recommendations)
- A.L.M. v. State, 176 So.3d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (trial court may reject probation but must obtain Department recommendation as to restrictiveness level before committing)