M.J. v. State

In these consolidated cases, the juvenile appellant, M.J., argues that the trial court reversibly erred in deviating from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation without complying with the require-*536merits of E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla. 2009). We agree and reverse.

In November 2015, after admitting to a violation of probation in four prior cases, M.J.’s probation was continued with a special condition that he successfully complete the AMI program. In March 2016, M.J. admitted to violating probation again, this time by not attending AMI. Upon the trial court’s directive, the…