DONALD W. HODGSON, 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.
Donald Hodgson, tried as an adult despite being 17 years old, appeals his convictions for attempted murder, sexual battery, and burglary. The court affirms the convictions but reverses and remands the sentences because the trial court failed to make specific factual findings required by statute for imposing adult sanctions.
The trial court's convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing because the court failed to make specific factual findings regarding the fourth statutory criterion concerning the juvenile's sophistication and maturity as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A court's order imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile defendant must be in writing and conform to all statutory criteria, including specific findings of fact and reasons…
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“Section 39.-lll(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), requires a decision to impose adult sanctions to be in writing and to conform with the six criteria stated in subsection (7)(c), and requires the court to make specific factual findings to support its decision to impose adult sanctions.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for written findings and specific factual support 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 intelligenceHodgson was 17 years old when he committed attempted murder, sexual battery, and burglary of a dwelling. The state directly filed an information again…
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 Attempted Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, Donald W. Hodgson, appeals his convictions and sentences as an adult for attempted murder, sexual battery, and burglary of a dwelling. We affirm the convictions without comment and reverse the sentences for the reason stated below.
Although Hodgson was 17 years old at the time of the offenses, he was tried as an adult because the state directly filed an information against him. Section 39.-04(3)(e)(4), Fla.Stat. (1989). He was convicted and sentenced as an adult to three concurrent 22-year sentences. Section 39.-lll(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), requires a decision to impose adult sanctions to be in writing and to conform with the six criteria stated in subsection (7)(c), and requires the court to make specific factual findings to support its decision to impose adult sanctions. The findings of fact may be contained either in the written order or the transcript of the sentencing hearing. Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In the order at bar, the trial court did not make a finding as to the fourth criterion listed under subsection (7)(c) — the “sophistication and maturity of the child, as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living.”
Although the court commented that Hodgson committed the crime in a sophisticated manner, this is not the same as consideration of his sophistication in light of his “home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living.” Because the court heard from Hodgson at the sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to conclude that the trial court did consider his “emotional attitude,” but neither Hodgson nor his psychiatrist or his parents made any mention of his home, environmental situation, or pattern of living. The psychiatrist merely discussed his suitability for a psychiatric facility, and his parents pleaded with the court to send their son to the facility rather than to prison. Although the pre-sentence investigation report mentioned Hodgson’s home, environmental situation, and pattern of living, and the trial judge indicated at the hearing and in his order that he had read the report, this court has specifically held that “mere reference to the [PSI and HRS] reports does not satisfy section 39.111(7)(c) and (d),” but that there must be a written indication in the sentencing order or the transcript that the trial court specifically considered each of the criteria. Martin, 547 So. 2d at 1000. Consistent with Martin, the trial court below is directed to consider specifically subsection (c)(4), as well as the other statutory criteria.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for resentencing.
WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troutman v. State, 603 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…1991). See State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). The decision to impose adult sanctions must be supported by a written order or a transcript containing the requisite findings of fact and reasons for imposing adult sanctions. Hodgson v. State, 590 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998, 999-1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Stickles v. State, 579 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Failure to address even one of the criteria requires reversal and remand. Taylor v. State, 593 So. 2d 1147…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)