MH v. State
69 So. 3d 325
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- M.H., a juvenile, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell/manufacture/deliver a controlled substance and possession of marijuana; offenses stem from attempting to sell marijuana to an undercover officer on 11/20/2010.
- DJJ predisposition report listed two prior marijuana arrests but the recommendation section discussed only one arrest and did not address timing or impact of prior offenses on probation suitability.
- DJJ issued a predisposition report recommending probation and substance abuse education.
- The trial court deviated from the DJJ recommendation, placing M.H. in a moderate-risk facility, and rejected probation.
- The PDR's omission and the trial court's reasoning formed the basis for developing issues under E.A.R.; the court noted the need for specific, on-record articulation of why one restrictiveness level is more appropriate than another.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded to permit more detailed, E.A.R.-compliant findings or reinstate probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deviation from DJJ recommendation complied with E.A.R. | M.H. argues deviation failed to satisfy E.A.R.'s required analysis. | State argues the court adequately considered the delinquent history and appropriate programming. | Deviation improper; must be remanded for proper E.A.R.-compliant findings. |
| Whether trial court adequately addressed delinquent history and program availability | DJJ overlooked prior history; PDR lacked complete discussion. | Trial court considered history but lacked specificity. | Order insufficient; failure to articulate specific deficiencies invalidates deviation. |
| Whether the deviation order stated least-restrictive setting and public protection rationale | No explicit finding that moderate-risk setting is least restrictive and balances rehab/public safety. | Court’s comments implied drug-treatment structure but lacked statutory basis. | Invalid under E.A.R.; remand to articulate least-restrictive rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (requires detailed on-record rationale for deviation from DJJ and understanding of restrictiveness levels)
- C.M.H. v. State, 25 So.3d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (remand to allow proper E.A.R.-compliant disposition or probation as recommended)
- M.K. v. State, 4 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding for proper E.A.R. compliance)
- Dep't of Juvenile Justice v. K.B., 784 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (emphasizes deference to DJJ but requires proper analysis before departing from recommendation)