HOWARD HAMMONDS, 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.
A minor was convicted of conspiracy to deal in stolen property and sentenced as an adult without consideration of the required predisposition report and without making specific findings of fact addressing statutory criteria. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing in compliance with Florida's juvenile sentencing statute.
The trial court erred in imposing adult sanctions because: (1) it imposed adult sanctions without having received or considered the required predisposition report; (2) it failed to make specific findings of fact addressing each statutorily dictated criterion; and (3) the order justifying the sentence contained only conclusions without factual support. The case must be reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing in compliance with the statute.
[1] A trial court cannot impose adult sanctions on a juvenile without first considering the predisposition report.
[2] A trial court must make specific findings of fact addressing each statutory criterion when deciding to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile.
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 order must be reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing in compliance with section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes (1987) because (1) the trial court imposed adult sanctions when the court had not received or considered the predisposition report.”
Establishes first ground for reversal—failure to obtain and consider required predisposition report
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a minor, was charged with conspiracy to deal in stolen property and grand theft. He entered a nolo contendere plea to conspiracy pursuant t…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The state filed an information against the minor appellant charging him with conspiracy to deal in stolen property and grand theft. Appellant pled nolo conten-dere to the conspiracy pursuant to a plea agreement which allowed the judge to determine the sentence. The grand theft charge was nolle prossed.
At sentencing, the predisposition report from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was not available, and even though section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes (1987) requires its consideration prior to sentencing, the trial court went ahead and sentenced appellant as an adult. In support of the imposition of adult sanctions, the trial court stated that appellant was as big as his father, that he was eighteen at the time of the sentencing, and that the judge didn’t think he should be associating with other juveniles.
Upon a motion to correct sentence after the predisposition report was prepared, which report recommended juvenile sanctions, the trial court declined to modify the sentence. However, being again reminded that section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes, requires the court to discuss and address each of the six criteria listed in the statute in determining whether adult sanctions are appropriate, the trial court stated that he couldn’t do that at the hearing, but he would discuss it. He then requested the state attorney to prepare the order, which was subsequently submitted and signed by the judge. The order is set forth in the footnote.1
The order must be reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing in compliance with section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes (1987) because (1) the trial court imposed adult sanctions when the court had not received or considered the predisposition report. Leach v. State, 407 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); (2) the trial court did not make specific findings of fact addressing each of the statutorily dictated criteria in deciding to impose adult sanctions. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); West v. State, 503 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Brown v. State, 524 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); and (3) the order is deficient in that the findings made therein were merely conclusions without facts supporting their application.
We would caution trial judges that under section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes, it is the trial court’s function to weigh the statutory criteria prior to imposing sentence. Having the state attorney prepare an order attempting to justify the trial court’s action after the sentence is passed and where the trial court does not make the analysis of the criteria on the record simply ignores the purpose of the statute which is to compel the trial court to analyze these criteria in each case prior to sentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur. . THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for sentencing and after hearing from the Defendant's Attorney, Defendant's father, the Assistant State Attorney and after considering the PDR and PSI, the Court determines that adult sanctions in this case are appropriate for the following reasons:
1) This was a crime against property where the value of the property would have been great.
2) The conspiracy to commit the offense was done in a sophisticated manner given the age and educational level of the child.
3) The offense was committed in a premediat-ed manner. 4) Although the child has no known previous criminal history the prospectus for adequate protection of the public is minimal through the use of juvenile sanctions as the department would be able to supervise the child for less than one year. In addition the child's home life is very unstable as indicated in the PDR. 5)Conspiracy to Deal in Stolen cars is a very serious offense in the community of St. Lucie County and the seriousness of such offense requires adult disposition.
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is hereby ordered that the Defendant be sentenced and treated as an adult.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida this 13th day of April, 1988.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vance H. Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…urt subsequently entered a written order with specific factual findings, such an order did not cure the trial court’s error in failing to timely consider the statutory criteria. See State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984), and Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand to the trial court to resentence the defendant. Since the trial court, upon remand, will be considering the suitability or non-suitability of adult sanctions before imposing sente…
-
Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ate period of time pursuant to section 39.111, Florida Statutes (1987), or sentencing him as a youthful offender under Chapter 958 of the Florida Statutes, if appropriate, after a disposition hearing pursuant to section 39.111(7). Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Costs may be imposed provided Lester is given proper notice and an opportunity to object. Sentence VACATED; cost judgment STRICKEN; and REMANDED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.…
-
Bradley v. State, 559 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e not been addressed at all in the trial court’s order. We reject appellant’s argument that the trial court must make written findings of fact which address each of the six criteria at sentencing and before reaching its decision. Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla.4th DCA 1989). However, the record must reflect that the trial court considered the six factors at the time of sentencing. In the same vein, we reject appellant’s argument that he must be re-sentenced as a juvenile. West, 503 So. 2d at 436. Acc…
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)
- Brown v. State, 524 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- West v. State, 503 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Richmond Willie Green, Jr. v. State, 407 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Leach v. State, 407 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)