BERNARD ERVIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Bernard Ervin, a juvenile convicted of attempted armed robbery and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun, appealed his sentencing as an adult with a departure from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court failed to make specific factual findings supporting an adult sentence and that neither reason for departing from guidelines was legally valid.
The trial court erred in both respects. First, it failed to make specific factual findings as required by statute, precluding effective appellate review. Second, neither reason for departure from guidelines was supported by law or record evidence, and Ervin must be sentenced within guidelines on remand if found suitable for adult sentencing.
[1] A trial court must make specific factual findings, citing to the record, to support a conclusion that sentencing a juvenile as an adult is appropriate.
[2] An order sentencing a juvenile as an adult must contain factual findings that preclude effective appellate review if it merely tracks statutory language without specific…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 erred in the sentencing because it failed to make specific factual findings citing to the record, § 39.111(7)(c) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1987), which would support the conclusion that sentencing as an adult was appropriate.”
Establishes the primary error regarding failure to make findings supporting adult sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErvin, a juvenile, was convicted of attempted armed robbery and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The trial court sentenced him as an a…
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 Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order sentencing the defendant as an adult and departing from the sentencing guidelines. We reverse on both points.
We first address the trial judge’s determination that Ervin, a juvenile, be sentenced as an adult upon his conviction of attempted armed robbery and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The trial court erred in the sentencing because it failed to make specific factual findings citing to the record, § 39.111(7)(c) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1987), which would support the conclusion that sentencing as an adult was appropriate. Instead, the order simply tracks the language of the statute and thus precludes effective appellate review of the sentence.
Accordingly, as to this issue, we reverse and remand for a determination as to whether the facts of this case as applied to the statutory criteria permit an adult sentence.
Ervin next complains, and we agree, that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines. Two reasons were given for departure. The state correctly concedes that the first departure reason, i.e. that the defendant created an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, is not supported by the evidence.
The trial court’s second reason for departure was that the defendant was out on bond on another offense when he committed the crimes for which he was convicted here. Citing to Brown v. State, 15 F.L.W. 111 (Fla. March 1, 1990), which held that a defendant’s violation of specific conditions of his bail evidenced a disrespect for the law and the judiciary and constituted a valid reason for departure, the state argues that this reason given by the trial judge was valid. We disagree. There is no record support here for a finding that Er-vin violated the conditions of “bail” or other pretrial release which would make Brown applicable. The offense for which Ervin was awaiting trial was being handled in the juvenile system. Ervin was not out on bond, but was free because he did not meet the statutory criteria for detention under section 39.032, Florida Statutes (1987). Cf. Crook v. State, 559 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, since neither reason for departure is valid, on remand Ervin must be sentenced within the guidelines, should the trial judge make factual findings that Er-vin is suitable for sentencing as an adult. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)…articular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere conclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We next turn to the question of whether the court’s evaluation and findings must be contemporaneously reduced to writing. Section 39.059(7)(d) makes clear that any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing and must c…
-
McCOY v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…articular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere eonclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Id. 630 So. 2d at 531. See also Kelly v. State, 605 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The trial court’s reasons for sentencing appellant as an adult in this case do not comport w…
-
Hangen v. State, 651 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…articular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere conclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).” McCoy v. State, 632 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), quoting Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528, 531 (Fla.1993); and citing Kelly v. State, 605 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); and Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Crook v. State, 559 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)