In this juvenile proceeding, petitioner K.P. seeks from this court a writ of habeas сorpus challenging an order of secure detention. Though it appears from the face of the order that he will already have been released from the fifteen-day secure detention that the trial court ordered, we consider it an issue capable of repetition and tending to evade review,
K.P. was originally placed on probation for the charge of possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. He was later charged with violаting probation. The January 20, 2007, risk assessment instrument for K.P. reflected a score оf only three points, less than the score required for secure detention.
Thе trial court conducted a hearing on the alleged violation on February 23, 2007. The trial court found that K.P. had a serious drug problem and had admitted to using marijuanа and cocaine on a daily basis, as confirmed by previous positive tеsts while on probation. The court also found that K.P., who is seventeen years оld, had failed to attend school since the eighth grade and is a chronic truаnt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued its disposition order revoking KP.’s probation, adjudicating him delinquent, and committing him to a moderate risk progrаm. The court also ordered that he be held in secure detention for fifteen days before being placed indefinitely in home detention while awaiting plаcement into a moderate risk program.
In the instant petition, K.P. argues that the trial court erred in placing him in secure detention. Initially, he points out that undеr section 985.245(1), Florida Statutes (2007): “All determinations and court orders regarding placement of a child into detention care ... shall be based on a risk assessment of the child.” Additionally, section 985.27(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), which pertains specificаlly to po-stcommitment detention, provides, “A child
K.P. additionally asserts that the trial court lacked the discretion to ordеr an adjudicated juvenile awaiting placement to a moderate risk сommitment facility to be held in secure detention for more than the 5 days cоntemplated by section 985.27(l)(b) without a motion from the Department of Juvenile Justice based on specific information that a placement is imminent. See J.M. v. State,
Although the trial court may have had meritorious reasons for keeping K.P. in secure detention for five days regardless of the reсommendation of the risk assessment instrument, as the State properly concedes, the trial court failed to state clear and convincing reasons for a more restrictive placement, as required under section 985.255(3)(b), Floridа Statutes (2007). See C.D.T.; see also §§ 985.245(1), .27(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007). And, as the State additionally concedes, the Departmеnt did not request that secure detention be extended an additional ten days bеyond the original five days. See J.M. Consequently, K.P. would have been entitled to habeas corpus relief from the February 23, 2007, secure detention order. Because, hоwever, by its terms, the order has expired, the petition is denied as moot.
PETITION DENIED.
Notes
. See A.W. v. State,
. We nоte that the trial court's detention order was entered on February 23, 2007, but the habеas corpus petition was not received by this court until March 6, 2007, some eleven days later. This court’s show cause order was issued on the same date, with thе attorney general being ordered to respond by 12:00 noon, Friday, March 9, 2007. Though the attorney general’s response was received some four hours late by this court at 4:10 p.m., it would seem that any delay in the instant case was attributable to K.P., not the attorney general.