S.C.E., The Child, v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA S.C.E., The Child, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-5765 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed April 12, 2012. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Robert E. Williams, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, S.C.E., challenges the trial court s order committing him to a moderate-risk residential program and argues that the court erred in deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice s recommendation of probation by failing to comply with the requirements enunciated in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009). We agree and, therefore, reverse. In doing so, we reject the State s argument that, because the Department s recommendation of probation differed from the recommendation set forth in the comprehensive evaluation, E.A.R. is not applicable in this case. Although a determination that the Department overlooked or failed to sufficiently consider the evaluation s recommendation may be a sufficient basis for the trial court to deviate from the Department s recommendation, the trial court must still make the findings required by E.A.R. before deviating from that recommendation. See N.P. v. State, 18 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also S.W. v. State, 26 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate-risk placement or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department s recommendation of probation. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.