G. D. W., A CHILD, 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 the trial court erred by failing to make specific written findings of fact concerning the statutory criteria for transferring a juvenile to adult court in its written order.
[1] A written order transferring a juvenile for prosecution as an adult must include specific findings of fact concerning each statutory criterion for transfer.
[2] Failure to make specific findings of fact regarding statutory transfer criteria in a written order constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was charged with armed robberies and transferred to adult court. The transfer order did not contain specific findings of fact regarding the…
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 Florida Juvenile Justice Act cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellant is a juvenile who was charged with the commission of four armed robberies. After the delinquency petitions were filed, the state attorney moved to transfer the cases to the adult division of the circuit court. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the court entered an order transferring appellant for prosecution as an adult. Although the order stated that the judge had considered the criteria for transfer established by section 39.09(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), the order did not contain specific findings of fact concerning each of those criteria. The juvenile immediately appealed the transfer order contending that the court was required in its written order to address each of the factors enumerated in section 39.09(2)(c).1
During the pendency of that appeal, appellant pled nolo contendere to the charges. The judge presiding in the adult division of the court sentenced appellant as an adult; however, he failed to execute written findings addressing the criteria for imposing adult sanctions enumerated in section 39.-lll(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1979). Appellant appealed the sentence alleging that the omission constituted reversible error. Appellant’s motion to consolidate the appeals was granted. In both cases we agree that the trial court erred in failing to formally adhere to the safeguards mandated in chapter 39.2 However, because the improper transfer alone precluded appellant from being treated as an adult,3 we believe that further discussion of the sentencing order is unnecessary.
Section 39.09(2)(e) provides as follows:
Any decision to transfer for criminal prosecution shall be in writing and shall include consideration of, and findings of fact with respect to, each of the foregoing criteria. The court shall render an order including a specific finding of fact and the reasons for a decision to impose adult sanctions. The order shall be reviewable on appeal pursuant to s. 39.14 and the Florida Appellate Rules.
The criteria alluded to in that subsection of the statute obviously refers to the factors listed in subsections 1-8 of section 39.-09(2)(c). The statute clearly requires that a trial court judge make findings of fact concerning each of those criteria in the written order. This requirement reflects the stated legislative purpose in the Florida Juvenile Justice Act, that “all findings made under this chapter be based upon facts presented at a hearing that meets the constitutional standard of fundamental fairness.” § 39.-001(2Xe), Fla.Stat. (1979). The requirement unquestionably is meant to facilitate intelligent appellate review. Accord, Woods v. State, 369 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The requirement coincides with the procedures mandated by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.4
Because the trial court failed to make the required findings, we must conclude that the transfer order does not comply with the statute. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the case to the juvenile division for the entry of an appropriate order transferring the juvenile and, if the court deems necessary, for a further hearing on the motion to transfer. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . We are aware that a conflict exists concerning the propriety of a direct appeal from an order transferring a juvenile. R.J.B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and G.A. v. State, 391 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). While G.A. appears to represent the better approach, the instant case does not require that we align ourselves with either position. Rather, under the particular facts presented here, the appellant’s argument concerning transfer has been considered as a second point in his appeal from the final judgment and sentence.
. In Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), we held that when a trial judge sentences a transferred juvenile after adult prosecution and conviction, the judge is required to consider and make written findings of fact on the specific criteria contained in section 39. Ill (6)(c) together with the reasons for the imposition of adult penalties. See also Stallins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Murray v. State, 382 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
.Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), held that absent a proper transfer from the juvenile to the adult division, the court was without authority to impose adult sanctions.
. Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.150(b) and 8.160(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)…at the purpose of this legislation requiring the trial court to place in writing its findings of fact and reasons for imposing an adult sentence on a juvenile is to facilitate an intelligent appellate review of such a sentence. See G.D. W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Further, with regard to the respondent’s failure to contemporaneously object to the trial judge’s failure to follow the statute in sentencing respondent, we agree with the reasoning of Judge Sharp in her dissent in Glenn v. Stat…
-
Boynton v. State, 473 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…at the purpose of this legislation requiring the trial court to place in writing its findings of fact and reasons for imposing an adult sentence on a juvenile is to- facilitate an intelligent appellate review of such a sentence. See G.D.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Id. at 1016. The court further noted: The juvenile justice statutory scheme, as adopted by the Florida Legislature, grants to juveniles the right to be treated differently from adults. The legislature has emphatically mandated…
-
Glenn v. State, 411 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…o. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Even where no objection was made in the trial court, our sister court has held the sentences invalid for failure to comply with section 39.111. See G. D. W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Eady v. State, 388 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In Rubasky, 401 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we held the defendant could not argue for the first time on appeal non-compliance with section 39.111(6), where at sentencing the ag…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Murray v. State, 382 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Woods v. State, 369 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- G.A. v. State, 391 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Rice v. State, 311 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Stallins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)