FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp,
S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
a juvenile, appeals the trial court's disposition orders
entered in four cases below following a plea. S.C.B. was
adjudicated delinquent on one count of dealing or trafficking
in stolen property, a second-degree felony; four counts of
burglary of a conveyance and two counts of grand theft, which
are third-degree felonies; as well as two counts of petit
theft and one count of misdemeanor possession of cannabis.
The trial court committed S.C.B. to a non-secure residential
program to be followed by probation after his release from
raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial
court erred when it adjudicated him delinquent of dealing or
trafficking in stolen property when he did not plead guilty
to that charge. S.C.B. contends that this is significant
because not only was he wrongfully adjudicated, but also the
recommended dispositions on all four cases contained in the
Department of Juvenile Justice's ("DJJ")
Pre-Disposition Report ("PDR"), which the trial
court followed, were based, to a significant extent, on the
DJJ's belief that S.C.B. had pleaded guilty to dealing or
trafficking in stolen property, which was the most serious
charge that he faced. S.C.B. submits that, as a result, all
four disposition orders must be vacated and a new disposition
hearing be held with a corrected predisposition report.
Second, S.C.B. asserts that the trial court erred in
proceeding with the disposition hearing and thereafter
committing him to a residential program without first having
received and considered the results of a mandatory
Comprehensive Evaluation Report.We agree with S.C.B.'s
first argument and therefore reverse and remand for further
proceedings. As a result, S.C.B.'s second issue has been
rendered moot, and we do not address it any further.
State filed four separate petitions for delinquency against
S.C.B. involving a total of seventeen charges. Shortly after
the petitions were filed, S.C.B. and the State entered into a
single plea agreement applicable to all four cases, in which
S.C.B. would plead guilty to ten of the counts and the court
would order the preparation of a PDR prior to the disposition
hearing. In exchange for S.C.B.'s guilty plea, the State
agreed to file a nolle prosequi as to the remaining
seven charges. Pertinent here, and as conceded by the State,
S.C.B. did not plead guilty to dealing or trafficking in
stolen property because, per the plea agreement, that charge
was to be "nol prossed." The trial court accepted
the plea and ordered the PDR.
predisposition report prepared by the DJJ and delivered to
the court showed that, contrary to the plea agreement, the
DJJ erroneously believed that S.C.B. pleaded guilty to
dealing or trafficking in stolen property. The DJJ's
recommendation to the court on the four cases was to commit
S.C.B. to a non-secure residential program to be followed by
probation. At the disposition hearing, S.C.B.'s counsel
raised the issue of this error in the predisposition report.
Our record does not reflect that the trial court addressed,
or even acknowledged, the erroneous predisposition report.
The court imposed the DJJ's recommended sanctions and
entered an incorrect disposition order adjudicating S.C.B.
delinquent of dealing or trafficking in stolen property.
appeal, the State concedes that the disposition order
adjudicating S.C.B. delinquent of this charge in that one
case should be vacated but contends that the remedy is simply
to enter a disposition order adjudicating S.C.B. delinquent
of grand theft, which was the only charge to which S.C.B.
actually pleaded guilty in that case. The State disputes the
need for a new disposition hearing in all four cases, arguing
that the record conclusively shows that the trial court still
would have committed S.C.B. to a non-secure residential
program and post-commitment probation in these four cases,
even with a correct predisposition report. We disagree for
the trial court did not expressly state this on the record,
despite being placed on notice by S.C.B.'s counsel at the
disposition hearing of the error in the predisposition
report. Second, we find it significant that the error in the
predisposition report applied to the only second-degree
felony charged in these cases, and we are not convinced by
our record that the DJJ would have made the same
recommendation to the trial court to commit S.C.B. to a
non-secure residential program had it known that S.C.B. had
only pleaded guilty to third-degree felonies. Stated
differently, the State's argument would be much more
persuasive if, for example, instead of being charged with one
second-degree felony, S.C.B. had been charged with five
second-degree felonies, pleaded guilty to four of these
felonies (plus the other lesser charges to which he pleaded),
but the predisposition report submitted to the court
erroneously represented that S.C.B. had pleaded guilty to all
five second-degree felonies and thereafter recommended that
S.C.B. be committed to a non-secure residential program.
we vacate the disposition orders entered by the trial court
in the four cases and remand for the court to conduct a new
disposition hearing after it has received and reviewed a
corrected predisposition report from the DJJ.
and REMANDED, with directions.
LAMBERT, EDWARDS, and ...