A.B., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE (2021)

Appellant, a juvenile, appeals his commitment to non-secure detention after the trial court rejected the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation of probation. We find no error in the trial court rejecting the probation recommendation and adjudicating Appellant delinquent. See C.H. v. State, 322 So. 3d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The trial court's rejection of the Department's probation recommendation is not a determination of restrictiveness level and requires no special reasoning pursuant to E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)].”). We conclude, however, that the trial court erred in ordering a commitment program for Appellant without first requesting a multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report from the Department as to its recommended commitment level. See K.L.L. v. State, 224 So. 3d 918, 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court, which rejected the Department's recommendation of probation, erred in committing the appellant without first requesting a commitment level recommendation from the Department and affirming the portion of the disposition order adjudicating the appellant delinquent, but reversing the non-secure residential commitment and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings); B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928, 930–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that although the trial court, which rejected the Department's probation recommendation and committed the appellant, did not violate the requirements set forth in E.A.R. given that the Department did not recommend a restrictiveness level, it did err in ordering a level of commitment without requesting a further multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up predisposition report); A.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 700, 700–01 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (same); see also F.L.P. v. State, 292 So. 3d 791, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[T]he trial court erred by not requesting that the DJJ submit an additional [predisposition report] to determine the restrictiveness level for Appellant's commitment. ․ Here, the PDR did not provide an alternate commitment recommendation, so the trial court did not have the benefit of a multidisciplinary assessment and DJJ recommendation to determine the appropriate level of commitment for Appellant.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the disposition order as to the adjudication of delinquency, but reverse the order as to the commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further proceedings.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Roberts, and Ray, JJ., concur.