low-risk commitment for sixty days, and recommended a STEP camp for boys. The judge explained that he was rejecting the “community control” recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice (department) because A.R. previously stole from the same store, has disciplinary problems at school, was suspended from a school drop-out prevention program and, despite previous youth mediation, stole in the instant case “because he wanted something sweet.” A.R. objected to the judge’s departure from the department’s recommendation. We affirm A.R.’s adjudication of delinquency without discussion. We reverse A.R.’s commitment, however, to allow the court to receive and consider a recommendation from the department as to restrictiveness level. See S.R. v. State, 683 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). We accordingly affirm A.R.’s adjudication of
holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals holding that where the department recommends community control for a juvenile the trial court is required to receive and consider a further restrictivenesslevel recommendation before ordering the juveniles commitment holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings