KYLE RICHARD TIGHE, 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 juvenile offender sentenced as an adult appeals, contending the trial court failed to enter adequate written findings supporting adult sanctions. The court agrees and remands for the trial court to enter proper findings complying with Florida Statutes section 39.111(7)(d), which requires specific written findings addressing statutory criteria for adult sanctions.
The trial court failed to enter adequate written findings as required by section 39.111(7)(d); merely tracking or checking off the statutory criteria is insufficient. The trial court erred in imposing costs without prior notice and opportunity to be heard. The court must vacate the sentences and remand for the trial court to enter adequate written findings or treat the appellant as a juvenile.
[1] A trial court must enter specific written findings of fact and reasons to support the imposition of adult sanctions on a juvenile offender.
[2] Simply checking a checklist or tracking statutory criteria is insufficient to satisfy the requirement for written findings supporting adult sanctions for a juvenile.
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“Section 39.111(7)(d) requires that any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing and in conformity with each of the criteria listed in the statute; the trial court must render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for written findings when 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 intelligenceKyle Richard Tighe, a juvenile offender, was sentenced as an adult for various offenses. The trial court imposed adult sanctions and also imposed cost…
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
W. SHARP, Judge.
The appellant, a juvenile offender who was sentenced as an adult for a variety of offenses, contends that the trial court failed to enter adequate written findings to support the imposition of adult sanctions. We agree and remand with opportunity to the trial court to enter adequate written findings.
Before sentencing a juvenile to adult sanctions, a trial court must hold a disposition hearing at which, among other things, the court must determine the suitability of the child for adult sanctions by using specific criteria listed in section 39.-lll(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1987). Section 39.111(7)(d) requires that any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing and in conformity with each of the criteria listed in the statute; the trial court must render a specific 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 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 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 compliance with the statute. While it has been stated in Lang, Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984), Cooper v. State, 465 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), that a transcript which is made part of the appellate record can satisfy section 39.111(7)(d) if it contains the requisite findings of fact and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions, the trial court in the instant case did not make any such organized and specific oral findings of fact on the record.
Because the trial court did not present us with the requisite factual findings, we remand in order to give it the opportunity to do so, if the basis for such findings exists, prior to resentencing. Keith; Leach. In the absence of such findings, the trial court must treat the appellant as a juvenile.
The parties agree that the trial court erred under Florida law in imposing costs without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. We therefore strike those portions of the orders imposing costs. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), and Camp v. State, 536 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Costs STRICKEN. Convictions AFFIRMED. Sentences VACATED and cause REMANDED with opportunity to the trial court to make adequate written findings of fact and reasons to support imposition of adult sanctions.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority in all aspects except the final disposition.
It is my opinion we should apply the rule in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990) and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to impose juvenile sanctions. It seems to me that this case and Pope are analogous and the same potential problems mentioned in Pope could arise in situations like this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)…We recognize that some judges have suggested that in cases like Troutman’s we should apply the rule in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990) and remand to the trial court with instructions to impose juvenile sanctions. See, e.g., Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (Dauksch, J., concurring and dissenting). However, we do not agree that Pope is analogous. In Pope, we were concerned that sentencing judges on remand would search for reasons to justify a departure sentence when the judge's…
-
McCOY v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…te, 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 with section 39.059(7)(e) because the court did not give an “individualized evaluation” of how appellant fit within the criteria. Rather…
-
Hangen v. State, 651 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…vin 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 1990). Although that was the law in effect at the time, this line of case law still does not apply to Hangen’s circumstances. Section 39.022(5)(d), Florida Statutes, states: Once a child has been transferred for criminal prosecution…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cooper v. State, 465 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Camp v. State, 536 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)