M.J. v. State

M.J. (defendant) was found to have violated probation in four cases. His probation was continued with the condition that he complete a specific program. M.J. violated probation again by not attending the program. The Department of Juvenile Justice (department) prepared a predisposition report recommending that M.J. continue probation, but in the alternative, committing M.J. to a minimum-risk facility. At the hearing, the state (plaintiff) requested M.J. be committed to a nonsecure residential-level facility—a facility of a different restrictiveness level than the department recommended. After hearing the testimony of M.J.’s probation officer that he would likely not comply with probation and that he had not attended the program due to fear of others attending, the trial court found that probation was not appropriate and deviated from the department’s recommendation. The court adjudicated M.J. delinquent in each case and committed him to the department in a nonsecure residential placement. On the record, the trial court said only that probation was “not an option.” It did not issue a written order. M.J. appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly deviated from the department’s recommendation and did not comply with E.A.R. v. State, which required that a trial court provide reasons on the record if it disagreed with a department recommendation.