The Florida District Court of Appeal has affirmed the revocation of probation for a juvenile, D.G., who failed to attend and complete required substance abuse and anger management counseling. This decision impacts D.G. and highlights the court's stance on probation violations and the importance of compliance with rehabilitation programs.

The case, D.G., a Juvenile v. the State of Florida, was filed on April 15, 2020, under docket number 3D19-0441. The ruling came after D.G. appealed a lower court's decision, arguing that he had not been given a fair chance to prepare for his probation violation hearing and that the evidence against him was insufficient.

Background

D.G. was a 14-year-old juvenile when he pled guilty to attempted strong-armed robbery, a third-degree felony, in 2016. As part of his sentence, he was placed on probation for five years, during which he was required to attend and complete anger management and substance abuse counseling at AMI Kids, a facility in Miami-Dade County. In February 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that D.G. violated his probation by not participating in these counseling programs.

The probation violation hearing was initially scheduled for August 30, 2018. However, the State's prosecutor admitted to a discovery violation when he attempted to call a witness, Clancy Strong, who was not listed on the witness list. The hearing was canceled, and the court rescheduled it for September 4, 2018. D.G.'s defense counsel objected to this rescheduling, claiming she did not have sufficient time to prepare.

The Ruling

The court ruled that the trial court did not err in its handling of the discovery violation and that it had conducted an adequate Richardson hearing. The judges noted that the prosecutor's failure to include Strong on the witness list was inadvertent and that the trial court had taken the necessary steps to ensure the defense had time to prepare. The opinion stated, "A fair reading of the August 30, 2018 hearing transcript reflects that the trial court... adequately considered all three Richardson factors."

Furthermore, the court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that D.G.'s failure to attend the counseling sessions was willful and deliberate. Strong testified that she had informed D.G. about the consequences of his behavior, and he was aware that he could be terminated from the programs if he did not improve. The judges concluded that the evidence was competent and substantial enough to support the trial court's decision to revoke D.G.'s probation.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the importance of compliance with probation conditions, particularly for juveniles. It emphasizes that failure to engage in required rehabilitation programs can lead to serious consequences, including the revocation of probation. The decision also highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that juveniles understand the terms of their probation and the potential repercussions of not adhering to them.

Moreover, the ruling serves as a reminder that the courts will carefully consider the circumstances surrounding discovery violations. The judges affirmed that the trial court acted within its discretion in handling the situation, which may set a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether D.G. plans to appeal this decision further. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time.