DONTAE BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a written order is required to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile, even after statutory amendments.
[1] A decision to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile must be in writing.
[2] A written order imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile is required, and the judgment and sentence alone are insufficient.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a juvenile, was sentenced to adult sanctions for robbery with a weapon. The trial court did not issue a separate written sentencing ord…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Brown appeals from his judgment and sentence of robbery with a weapon.1 He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in sentencing him, a juvenile, to adult sanctions without a written sentencing order imposing them. He also argues that the trial judge refused to consider the option of boot camp for him. We reject that ground, but we agree that a written order should have been issued.
Prior to October 1, 1994, a trial judge who sentenced a juvenile as an adult was required to prepare a written order with specific findings supporting the sentence.2 This section was amended effective October 1, 1994, to eliminate the requirement of specific findings. However, section 39.059(7)(d) requires the decision be put in written form:
Any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing, but is presumed appropriate, and the court is not required to set forth specific findings or enumerate the criteria in this subsection as any basis for its decision to impose adult sanctions.
This court has held that this amended statute requires a trial judge to issue a written order imposing adult sanctions. Roberts v. State, 677 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The judgment and sentence alone are insufficient. That is all the record in this case encompasses. Although the written order need not consider each of the criteria listed in section 39.059(7)(c), it should state the basis for the trial court’s decision, which in most cases most likely will rest upon one or some of the criteria set forth in the statute. This may be accomplished on remand. Smith v. State, 684 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Oliver v. State, 681 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Crabb v. State, 676 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Roberts v. State, 677 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 812.13, Fla.Stat. . § 39.059(7)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Walker v. State, 656 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Varela v. State, 650 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Parks v. State, 637 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. State, 702 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. State, 656 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Varela v. State, 650 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Crabb v. State, 676 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Roberts v. State, 677 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Smith v. State, 684 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Parks v. State, 637 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Oliver v. State, 681 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)