WILLIAM BRUCHEY, 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.
William Bruchey appealed his adult sanctions imposed as a youthful offender, arguing the trial court failed to consider all statutory factors required before imposing adult sanctions. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence, finding no basis to assume the trial court did not consider the required factors despite not reading them aloud during the hearing.
The appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that although the sentencing court did not read aloud the statutory checklist during the hearing, there is no basis in the record to assume the trial court did not consider these factors, and the written reasons for imposing adult sanctions were sufficient.
[1] A trial court's failure to explicitly articulate consideration of all statutory factors for imposing adult sanctions at the sentencing hearing does not, without more, inv…
[2] A defendant must object at the time of sentencing to the imposition of adult sanctions based on the trial court's alleged failure to consider statutory criteria to preser…
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“Although the sentencing court did not read aloud the "checklist" provided in section 39.111(7)(c) during the sentencing hearing, we are unwilling, without any basis in the record, to assume that the trial court did not consider these factors before the decision to impose adult sanctions.”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing whether trial courts considered required statutory factors—absence of explicit reference does not create an inference of non-consideration without record evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, seventeen years old at the time of the offenses, pled no contest to burglary and petit theft charges and was adjudicated guilty. The trial …
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 Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks to reverse the imposition of adult sanctions on the ground that the trial court did not consider all of the factors enumerated in section 39.111(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), before imposing sentence. We affirm.
Appellant pled no contest to charges of burglary and petit theft, and he was adjudicated guilty of those charges. Appellant was seventeen years old when the offenses were committed. Deciding that adult sanctions were appropriate, the court sentenced appellant as a youthful offender and recommended appellant attend boot camp for 18 months, to be followed by three years probation for the burglary charge. On the petit theft charge, appellant was given a sentence of 60 days, which was to run concurrently with the other sentence. The sentencing hearing transcript reveals that prior to the time of sentencing, the court had received the predisposition report (PDR) and the presentence investigation report (PSI).
The day after the sentence was imposed, the trial court issued its written reasons for imposing adult sanctions in compliance with section 39.111(7)(d).
Appellant makes no argument that the written reasons are in any way insufficient. Although the sentencing court did not read aloud the “checklist” provided in section 39.111(7)(c) during the sentencing hearing, we are unwilling, without any basis in the record, to assume that the trial court did not consider these factors before the decision to impose adult sanctions. Compare, Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (sentencing hearing transcript served as written reasons for imposing adult sanctions, but the transcript did not reflect that the court fully considered all the sec. 39.111(7)(c) criteria).
We note that appellant did not object to the imposition of adult sanctions on the ground that the court had not reviewed the subsection (7)(c) criteria.
Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED.
SMITH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendrick Bernard Hill v. State, 605 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…on of adult sanctions. The order in this case is deficient, in that the trial court’s reasons for imposing adult sanctions are not set forth in sufficient detail. In making this determination, we are cognizant that the decision in Bruchey v. State, 570 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), suggests a less stringent standard than we apply in this case. However, in Bruchey, the issue was whether the trial court considered all of the statutory factors before imposing an adult sentence. Because there was no basis in t…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)