MICHAEL ARTHUR KEITH, 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.
Michael Arthur Keith, a juvenile, appealed his six-year adult criminal sentence for robbery on the ground that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Statutes § 39.111(7)(d) by not providing specific written findings of fact and reasons for imposing adult sanctions. The court agreed, finding that while the trial court entered an order considering the statutory criteria, it did not articulate specific findings and reasons for the adult sanction decision.
The trial court did not comply with § 39.111(7)(d) because while it satisfied the requirements of § 39.111(7)(c) by entering an order indicating consideration of statutory criteria, it failed to render specific findings of fact and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. The conviction was affirmed but the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in compliance with the statute.
[1] A trial court must strictly comply with statutory requirements for imposing adult criminal sanctions upon a juvenile, absent waiver by the juvenile.
[2] Statutory authorization for imposing adult criminal sanctions on a juvenile requires the trial court to set forth in writing a specific finding of fact and the reasons fo…
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“the trial court must strictly comply with the terms of the statute”
Establishes the high standard for compliance with statutory requirements for imposing adult sanctions on juveniles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Arthur Keith, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to robbery under Florida Statutes § 812.13(2)(c). The trial court imposed an adult criminal sentence …
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 Statutory Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
Defendant Michael Arthur Keith, a juvenile, has taken this appeal from his judgment and sentence of six years imprisonment imposed by the trial court after defendant pleaded guilty to committing the offense of robbery, section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987). Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to impose adult criminal sanctions upon him because the trial court failed to comply with the provision set forth in section 39.-lll(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). We agree and reverse.
Section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987) authorizes the imposition of adult criminal sanctions upon a convicted juvenile provided that the trial court sets forth in writing “a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.” Absent waiver by the juvenile, the trial court must strictly comply with the terms of the statute. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). See also See Johnson v. State, 508 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Grandison v. State, 506 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
In this case, the trial court entered into the record an order entitled “Determination of the Suitability of Imposing Adult Sanctions” which set forth a checklist indicating that the court had considered the six criteria provided in paragraph (7)(c) of the statute. Although this order states that “the reasons for each finding have been stated in the record,” the transcript of defendant’s sentencing hearing reveals that the only comment made by the trial court concerning the defendant was:
“We can’t make you mature. Apparently there’s nothing we can do to keep you from committing crimes so all we can try to do is protect society from you as much as we can.”
While the entry of this order satisfies the requirement of section 39.111(7)(c), it does not satisfy the requirement set forth in section 39.111(7)(d) that the court must “render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.” Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s conviction but vacate his sentence and remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the statute.
Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…to indicate that the court considered the six criteria, does not satisfy section 39.111(7)(d) because the court must render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions using all six criteria. Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Here the check list reflects conclusions. Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Although the trial judge may make the findings of fact on the record at the sentencing hearing, in the present case, such fi…
-
Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. This court has held that all the criteria must be specifically considered and findings stated. Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See also Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which it was held that absent waiver by the juvenile, a trial court must comply strictly with the terms of section 39.111(7)(d). Simply checking off a checklist of the criteria to indicate that they have been considered, or m…
-
Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…sions. The use of the checklist alone does not comply with the statute. To comply with the statute, there must be specific findings of fact, based on the record in each case, which apply to the specific defendant being sentenced. See Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (use of a checklist alone, without specific findings of fact, does not fulfill the statutory requirements of section 39.111(7)(d)). No such findings appear here. A sentence which imposes adult sanctions on a juvenile defendant mu…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Grandison v. State, 506 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 508 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)