Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
T.M., A CHILD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is being wrongfully detained in secure detention. Petitioner pled to lewd and lascivious conduct on a victim less than twelve years of age, and the trial court ordered Petitioner held in secure detention while awaiting an opening in a non-secure residential commitment program. Petitioner did not score high enough for secure detention on his risk assessment instrument, and the State concedes that the trial court did not enter any written findings otherwise justifying secure detention.
Generally, determinations regarding placement of a minor in secure detention are based on the risk assessment. § 985.245(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). However, section 985.255 permits the court to otherwise order secure detention based upon written findings. See § 985.255, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, “[w]here a statute requires a written order giving findings and reasons, the transcript of the proceedings upon which the order was based cannot act as a substitute.” A.D. v. State, 45 So. 3d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting R.B.S. v. Capri, 384 So. 2d 692, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).
Although the trial court made findings of fact at the hearing sufficient to support secure detention, the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting those findings as required by statute. Therefore, we direct the trial court to either enter a written order justifying Petitioner's secure detention, or to order Petitioner's release therefrom, by 5:00 p.m. on the second business day following the date of issuance of this opinion. See A.D. v. State, 45 So. 3d at 576.
PETITION GRANTED.
PER CURIAM.
ORFINGER, EDWARDS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D17-3053
Decided: September 29, 2017
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)