N.H., THE CHILD, v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA N. H., The Child, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-3544 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed December 19, 2012. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. David M. Gooding, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, N.H., challenges the trial court s order placing him in a low-risk commitment program. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009), when it deviated from the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Therefore, we reverse Appellant s commitment order. Appellant was tried and found guilty of robbery, and he pled guilty to making threats to a school official. DJJ recommended placing Appellant on probation, requiring him to attend Jacksonville Marine Institute, and continuing counseling for his anger management issues. At the disposition hearing, the trial court deviated from DJJ s recommendation and committed Appellant to a low-risk program. The trial court entered a written order providing reasons for the departure; however, the court s reasons fell short of the analysis required by E.A.R. because they did not demonstrate an understanding of the respective characteristics of the restrictiveness levels and they did not explain why low-risk commitment better served the rehabilitative needs of Appellant. Based on the strict requirements of E.A.R., we reverse the commitment order and remand to provide the trial court with an opportunity to enter an order in compliance with E.A.R., or, if the trial court cannot, impose the probation recommended by DJJ. M.H. v. State, 69 So. 3d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); C.M.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED. DAVIS and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR; BENTON, C.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT OPINION. 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.
