SHAWN C. SMITH, 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.
Smith, a juvenile defendant, appealed his conviction and sentence. The Fifth District affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence because the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile, specifically by failing to enter written findings of fact supporting its conclusions.
The trial court did not comply with the statutory requirements. Adult sanctions on a juvenile defendant must be imposed with specific written findings of fact addressing each statutory criterion, not merely a checklist indicating consideration. The sentence was therefore vacated and remanded for re-sentencing.
[1] A court's decision to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile defendant must be in writing and include specific findings of fact and reasons for the decision, conforming to…
[2] The use of a checklist alone, without specific written findings of fact addressing statutory criteria, does not comply with the statutory requirements for imposing adult…
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“Any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing, and it shall be in conformity with each of the above criteria. The court shall render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.”
States the statutory requirement for imposing adult sanctions on juveniles, establishing the mandatory written findings standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShawn C. Smith, a juvenile defendant, was convicted and sentenced to adult sanctions. The trial court received evidence on the statutory criteria for …
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 Specific Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence. Finding no error in the convictions, the judgment is affirmed. We vacate the sentence, however, because in imposing adult sanctions upon this juvenile defendant, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.-111(7)(d) which, in referring to the statutory criteria for sentencing set forth in section 39.111(7)(c), provides:
Any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing, and it shall be in conformity with each of the above criteria. The court shall render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. Such order shall be reviewable on appeal by the child pursuant to s. 39.14.
Attention to these criteria and guidelines is made mandatory by section 39.111(7)(j).
The trial court received evidence on the various criteria outlined in section 39.- 111(7)(c), but made no findings of fact as to these criteria, as required by section 39.111(7)(d). Instead, the trial court used a checklist on which were listed, among other things, the statutory criteria, next to each of which was a blank space on which the judge could enter a mark indicating consideration of that item. The problem is that the checklist reflects only conclusions, whereas the statute requires written findings of fact to support those conclusions. 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 must be reversed where findings of fact addressed to the statutory criteria have not been made. Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
We therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for re-sentencing.
Judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…se 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 findings were not made. Bradley v. State, 559 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The only specific findi…
-
Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…the terms of section 39.111(7)(d). Simply checking off a checklist of the criteria to indicate that they have been considered, or merely tracking the criteria, is not enough. Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Keith; Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Murphy v. State, 546 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th [*84] DCA 1989); Leach v. State, 545 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In the case before us, the record does not reveal that the trial court made any written findings of fact in complia…
-
Leach v. State, 545 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…have previously held that such an order does not satisfy the requirements set forth in section 39.111(7)(d) that the trial court must “render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.” See Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand this cause to the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)