## Facts

- M.J., a juvenile, was on probation in four delinquency cases.
- M.J. previously was found in violation of probation in those cases.
- The trial court continued M.J.’s probation on the condition that he complete a specified program.
- M.J. violated probation again by failing to attend the program.
- The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) prepared a predisposition report recommending that M.J. remain on probation; alternatively, the report recommended commitment at a minimum-risk residential level.
- At the disposition hearing, the State requested commitment to a nonsecure residential placement, which is more restrictive than the report’s recommendation.
- M.J.’s probation officer testified that M.J. likely would not comply with probation and that M.J. missed the program because he feared other attendees.
- The trial court adjudicated M.J. delinquent in each case and committed him to DJJ at the nonsecure residential level.
- On the record, the trial court stated only that probation was “not an option” and did not enter a written order explaining the deviation from DJJ’s recommendation.
- M.J. appealed, arguing the court’s upward deviation failed to meet the requirements announced in *E.A.R. v. State*.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by placing M.J. at a more restrictive DJJ level than recommended without giving adequate, case-specific reasons on the record and without issuing a written deviation order as required by *E.A.R. v. State*.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the disposition and remanded for a new disposition hearing.
- The court held that the trial court’s statement that probation was “not an option,” without more, did not satisfy *E.A.R.*’s requirement for case-specific reasons supporting an upward deviation.
- The court further held that the trial court’s failure to enter a written order stating the reasons for deviating from DJJ’s recommendation independently required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A juvenile court is not bound by DJJ’s recommended restrictiveness level, but an upward deviation is permitted only if the court provides legally sufficient, case-specific reasons.
- Under *E.A.R. v. State*, the court must explain on the record why it is rejecting the DJJ recommendation and why the selected restrictiveness level is more appropriate for the child and the offense conduct.
- The reasons must be tied to the record and cannot be merely conclusory (for example, stating only that probation is “not an option”).
- The court must also enter a written order setting out the reasons for deviation; the absence of a written deviation order is reversible error.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed because the trial court increased M.J.’s placement to nonsecure residential commitment above DJJ’s recommendation without providing adequate, case-specific oral reasons and without issuing the written deviation order that *E.A.R. v. State* requires, and it remanded for a new disposition consistent with those requirements.


M.J. v. State, 212 So. 3d 534 (2017)