Case ID: so3d_163/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

I. A., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D14-5091.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 29, 2015.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

I.A. argues in this appeal that the trial court impermissibly committed him to a high-risk placement for two misdemeanor offenses. Because he- was on probation following guilty pleas to two counts of misdemeanor, battery and admitted only to technical violations of probation, under section 985.441(2), Florida Statutes (2014), appellant could be committed, at the most, to a nonsecure residential placement. See D.H. v. State, 114 So.3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Even under the changes made to section 985.441(2) during the 2014 Legislative, session, see Ch.2014-162, § 25, at 43, Laws of Fla. and Ch.2014-162, § 3, at 16, Laws of Fla., the court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk placement. As we did in D.H., we determine the commitment was contrary to law. The trial court could not have committed appellant to a high-risk facility even if it had set out its findings in writing. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.