C.M.T. v. Soud

2 Citing cases

  1. S.W. v. Woolsey

    673 So. 2d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Detailing the requirements for a valid RAI, the instrument's method of assessing risk, and the impact of that assessment on custody status

    At the detention review hearing on the following day, held before a different judge, petitioner's counsel argued that, according to section 39.044 (9), Florida Statutes (1995), a child on release status might be placed in detention "only pursuant to a court hearing in which the original risk assessment instrument, rescored based on newly discovered evidence or changed circumstances with the results recommending detention[,] is introduced into evidence." In support of his argument, counsel cited R. W. v. Soud, 639 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1994), and C.M.T. v. Soud, 662 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). According to petitioner's counsel, the fact that petitioner had been found to have committed the delinquent act with which she had been charged was "not a change in circumstances" because the RAI had already reflected a score of nine points for that charge.

  2. M.L.F. v. State

    678 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Finding no legal basis for the order directing that appellant be held in secure detention pending transfer to a moderate-risk residential facility, that order is reversed. See generally C.M.T. v. Soud, 662 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (granting writ of habeas corpus when juvenile was shown to have been ordered held in secure detention, contrary to RAI score, pending placement in moderate-risk residential program). We do not order appellant's immediate release only because it appears that he is no longer so detained.