Opinion ID: 1644479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Fourth District's Opinion and Certification of Conflict

Text: On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal framed the issue as: [W]hether section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), requires a trial court to specifically identify the characteristics of the restrictiveness level imposed vis-à-vis the needs of the juvenile, when the trial court sentences a juvenile to a different restrictiveness level than that recommended by the [DJJ]. E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610, 610-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (footnote omitted). The district court held that section 985.433(7)(b), and its predecessor (section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2005)), do not expressly impose such a requirement, and further stated that this requirement had developed from a dissent in J.L.O. v. State, 721 So.2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), where it was observed that a juvenile court's departure reasons must have reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-à-vis the needs of the child. J.L.O., 721 So.2d at 443 (Griffin, C.J., dissenting) (citing § 985.03(45), Fla. Stat. (1997)); see E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 611. According to the Fourth District, later cases, such as J.M. v. State, 939 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and R.T. v. State, 946 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), transformed this observation into an affirmative requirement that juvenile courts must reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-à-vis the needs of the child. E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 611-12. In this way, a general concept of relatedness evolved into a judge's obligation to articulate the precise connection between a sentence and the child's needs. Id. at 612. The Fourth District affirmed the juvenile court's departure decision [22] and, as mentioned above, certified conflict with M.S. v. State, 927 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), where the Second District held that a juvenile court must `reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-à-vis the needs of the child' [23] to justify a departure disposition. See E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 613.