T. S., A Child v. State of Florida
227 So. 3d 229
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile T.S., while on probation, was arrested for grand theft auto, possession of cocaine and cannabis, and driving without a license; he also admitted violating probation and pled guilty to the new offenses.
- The Department of Juvenile Justice prepared a pre-disposition report (PDR) finding T.S. a “moderate-high risk” but recommended commitment to a minimum-risk nonresidential program at the American Marine Institute (AMI).
- At disposition, the State urged commitment to a more restrictive nonsecure residential program (which would remove T.S. from his home), citing offense seriousness, school misconduct, and probation violations.
- Defense counsel asked the court to follow the Department’s AMI recommendation.
- The trial court ordered commitment to a nonsecure residential program and explained its reasons in general terms (doubting success at AMI, needing residential drug treatment, and expressing concern about T.S. posing a danger to the community).
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court complied with E.A.R. v. State’s mandate requiring specific, articulated findings when departing from the Department’s recommendation and reversed and remanded for compliance or re-sentencing to the Department’s recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with E.A.R. when departing from the Department’s dispositional recommendation | T.S. argued the court failed to meet E.A.R.’s requirements and thus erred in departing from the Department’s recommendation | The State argued the court permissibly departed based on offense seriousness, probation violations, and community danger | Court held the trial court did not comply with E.A.R.; reversal and remand for E.A.R.-compliant findings or commitment to the Department’s recommended program |
| Whether the trial court’s reasons were supported by a preponderance of the evidence per §985.433(7)(b) (as interpreted by E.A.R.) | T.S. contended the court gave nonspecific, unsupported reasons and did not identify overlooked or misconstrued Departmental information | The State relied on the court’s stated concerns (need for residential drug treatment; risk to community) as sufficient under the statute | Court found the on-record reasoning legally insufficient under E.A.R.’s articulated-criteria standard |
| Scope of appellate review for departures from Department recommendations | T.S. urged strict enforcement of E.A.R.’s rigorous articulation and evidentiary demands on review | The State suggested traditional deference to trial-court discretion and statutory compliance sufficed | Court applied de novo review and enforced E.A.R.’s rigorous requirements; trial court’s discretionary reasoning was not enough without E.A.R. findings |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to articulate E.A.R. factors could be harmless error | T.S. argued noncompliance required reversal per E.A.R. | The State and concurrence suggested the error might be harmless where record otherwise supports disposition | Majority held E.A.R. leaves no room for harmless-error analysis; remand required for proper findings or adherence to Department recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009) (establishes rigorous articulation requirements for judicial departures from Department dispositional recommendations)
- M.J. v. State, 212 So.3d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (applies E.A.R. and explains de novo review for compliance)
- M.H. v. State, 69 So.3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (discusses difficulty of departing from Department recommendations under E.A.R.)
- B.L.R. v. State, 74 So.3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (addresses E.A.R. compliance and dissenting views on harmless-error treatment)