ROBERT GREEN, 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.
This case addresses whether a juvenile charged as an adult for robbery can be sentenced years later without proper findings of suitability for adult sanctions. The court holds that even when a juvenile reaches adulthood at sentencing, the trial court must make explicit findings regarding the appropriateness of imposing adult sanctions before imposing such a sentence.
The court holds that the sentence is illegal because: (1) there was no affirmative election by Green to be sentenced under sentencing guidelines, affecting his parole eligibility, and (2) the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.111(7)(c) that adult sanctions were suitable, even though Green had reached adulthood by the time of sentencing.
[1] A juvenile defendant's eligibility for parole requires that a sentence be corrected to reflect that it is not a guidelines sentence when the record does not affirmatively…
[2] A sentence imposed for a juvenile crime is illegal when the record lacks essential findings regarding the suitability of an adult sanction, even if the defendant reached…
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 intelligence“the fact that Green had reached adulthood when he was belatedly sentenced for the 1983 crime does not obviate the requirement that there be findings consistent with the suitability of the adult sanction”
Establishes the core holding that maturity at time of sentencing does not eliminate the requirement for findings supporting adult sanctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Green, age 16, committed robbery and second-degree grand theft on June 5, 1983. The state sought adult sanctions under Florida law. Green plead…
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 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The appellant, Robert Green, was 16 years old on June 5,1983, when he committed the offenses of robbery and second degree grand theft. The state attorney, acting pursuant to section 39.04(2)(e)(4), Florida Statutes (1983), filed an information requesting that adult sanctions be imposed upon Green. Green pleaded nolo contendere to the robbery charge, adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation for one year, that period to run consecutively with a county jail sentence he was serving on other charges. The grand theft charge was dismissed.
Green was released from the county jail on June 9, 1985. On August 30, 1985, an affidavit was executed asserting that Green had engaged in criminal conduct in violation of his probationary status. Specifically, the affiant alleged that on July 2, 1985, Green committed the crimes of armed robbery, grand theft auto, possession of a short-barreled shotgun and carrying a concealed weapon. Green’s probation was revoked on October 24, 1985, and he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the 1983 robbery committed as a juvenile. That sentence was to begin upon the expiration of a 7 year sentence imposed for the crimes triggering Green’s violation of probation.
We find two problems in the adult sentence imposed for the robbery conviction. First, the record fails to reflect an affirmative election by Green that he be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines. It does appear from the record that at sentencing the discussion of a scoresheet occurred, but we have found nothing permitting us to conclude that Green was sentenced pursuant to the guidelines. Thus, to preserve Green’s eligibility for parole, the sentence must be corrected to reflect that it is not a guidelines sentence. Hall v. State, 482 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Second, the fact that Green had reached adulthood when he was belatedly sentenced for the 1983 crime does not obviate the requirement that there be findings consistent with the suitability of the adult sanction. § 39.111(7)(c), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1986). The record does not contain the essential findings. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). Thus, the sentence is illegal. State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986); Rathbone v. State, 448 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Johnson v. State, 371. So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
This matter is remanded for the correction of sentence and findings prepared in accordance with section 39.111(7)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986).
SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Retired) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Val Lee Rathbone v. State, 448 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hall v. State, 482 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)