VAL LEE RATHBONE, 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.
Val Lee Rathbone appeals his sentences for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft imposed after his guilty plea. The court affirms the plea but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court failed to follow statutory procedures for determining whether Rathbone, who committed the offenses as a minor but reached adulthood before sentencing, should receive juvenile or adult sanctions.
The trial court failed to properly follow the mandatory procedure outlined in § 39.111(6), which requires the court to determine the suitability or non-suitability for adult sanctions by reference to specific statutory criteria before imposing any other disposition. This failure constitutes reversible error, and the case must be remanded for resentencing with proper application of the statutory criteria.
[1] A predisposition report prepared by HRS is mandatory when sentencing a juvenile as an adult, and a presentence investigation report from the Department of Corrections is…
[2] Sentencing a juvenile as an adult requires the court to obtain a predisposition report from HRS, which must include a recommendation from HRS.
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 intelligence“It was incumbent upon the trial court to determine the "[s]uitability or non-suitability for adult sanctions ... before any other determination of disposition. The suitability determination shall be made by reference to" the criteria enumerated in the statute.”
Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement that the trial court must follow the specific procedure in § 39.111(6) before imposing sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRathbone was seventeen years old when he committed burglary of a conveyance and grand theft on April 6, 1983. Three days later, he turned eighteen. He…
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 Juvenile Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Val Lee Rathbone appeals from the sentences imposed upon his plea of guilty to burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. We remand for reconsideration of the sentences.
In May 1983, Rathbone was charged by information with burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. At the time of the commission of these offenses, April 6, 1983, Rathbone was seventeen years of age. Three days later, Rathbone reached his eighteenth birthday.
A plea agreement was entered into through which Rathbone would plead guilty to the charges and would receive probation and be required to pay restitution and a fine. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed a presentence investigation report and a predisposition report, the latter recommending that juvenile sanctions be imposed. Counsel for Rath-bone stated to the court that the court must determine, prior to the imposition of sentence, whether Rathbone should be treated as a juvenile or as an adult. The court recognized that this determination should be made, but stated “that in view of the fact that Mr. Rathbone has now reached his eighteenth birthday that it would be inappropriate to place him on community control under juvenile sanctions.”
Both parties agree that section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1983), is applicable to this case. It was incumbent upon the trial court to determine the “[sjuitability or non-suitability for adult sanctions ... before any other determination of disposition. The suitability determination shall be made by reference to” the criteria enumerated in the statute. § 39.111(6)(c). Additional considerations are provided for in section 39.-111(6). The trial court’s failure to follow the procedure outlined in section 39.111(6) is reversible error. Rhoden v. State, 421 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980).
We therefore AFFIRM the trial court’s acceptance of Rathbone’s plea of guilty but REVERSE the disposition and REMAND for reconsideration of the sentences. In pronouncing sentence, the trial court shall follow the criteria contained in section 39.-111(6), Florida Statutes (1983).
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…reveals that the issue was fully discussed without reference by the state as to the plea bargain and a possible waiver. Compare Broome; hut cf., Pendarvis v. State, 400 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). 509 So. 2d at 1351. See also Rathbone v. State, 448 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Dixon v. State, 451 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984). See Taylor v. State 534 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). But see Davis v. State, 528 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla…
-
T.D.L. v. Chinault, 570 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…he child reaches adulthood between the time of the offense and the date of disposition, such that he is not even a “juvenile” when before the court, the statute should be followed. Green v. State, 506 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Rathbone v. State, 448 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We have found one recent case which suggests, by silence, that an underage contemnor may be sentenced as an adult without the findings required by section 39.111(7). B.M. v. State, 523 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, th…
-
Dixon v. State, 451 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…The defendant has filed a motion for rehearing in which he relies on State v. [*486] Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984), and Rathbone v. State, 448 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) [decided subsequent to our original decision in this cause] for the proposition that it is fundamental error for a trial court to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile defendant without making written trial court findings on the su…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980)
- In the Interest of T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Learnhart Rhoden v. State, 421 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)