T.M. v. State, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18358

On August 24, 2009, T.M. pleaded guilty to grand theft auto and resisting an officer without violence and was placed on juvenile probation for one year.
On February 10, 2010, T.M. pled guilty to violating probation by testing positive for marijuana while in a substance abuse program.
A predisposition report (PDR) from DJJ recommended continued probation subject to DJJ supervision.
At the March 25, 2010 disposition hearing, the State urged probation revocation and a moderate-risk placement; the court inquired about low-risk options.
The court revoked probation, adjudicated T.M. delinquent for a misdemeanor battery, and ordered DJJ custody in a low-risk residential program, over defense objection.
The disposition exceeded DJJ’s recommendation, and the court failed to perform the required E.A.R.-style analysis and to identify overlooked information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Departure from DJJ without proper analysis	State argues departure is supported by the record.	T.M.'s counsel argues departure lacked sufficient articulation.	Remand required; departure flawed
Failure to identify overlooked information by DJJ	State maintains DJJ’s findings were comprehensive.	T.M. argues court failed to identify information DJJ may have overlooked.	Remand required; inadequate justification

E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (requires rigorous reasoning when departing from DJJ recommendation)
M.J.S. v. State, 6 So.3d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (clarifies depart-from-DJJ standards following E.A.R.)
C.A.D. v. State, 18 So.3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (discourages departure without substantive comparison of levels)
S.G. v. State, 26 So.3d 725 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010) (emphasizes required articulation of restrictions and rationale)