DAVID ALLEN SNYDER, 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.
David Snyder, a juvenile sentenced as an adult for grand theft, appealed his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for the trial court to delete a duplicate adjudication and conduct a restitution hearing to establish the amount owed to the victim.
The conviction is affirmed because the required written findings for sentencing a juvenile as an adult are not necessary when the adjudication is entered pursuant to a plea agreement and the defendant's attorney waives the findings. The trial court erred in entering a second adjudication for the same offense and must vacate it on remand. The trial court must either establish the amount of restitution or state clear and compelling reasons on the record for not ordering restitution.
[1] A written requirement for findings to sentence a juvenile as an adult is obviated when the adjudication is entered pursuant to a plea agreement.
[2] A defendant's attorney can expressly waive statutory findings required for sentencing a juvenile as an adult.
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 need for such written reasons has been obviated when the adjudication is entered pursuant to a plea agreement”
Establishes that written findings under chapter 39 are not required for sentencing juveniles as adults when there is a negotiated plea agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSnyder pleaded no contest to grand theft pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court adjudicated him guilty, withheld sentence, and placed him on pr…
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 Juveniles as Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
David Snyder, a juvenile who was sentenced as an adult, appeals his judgment and sentence for grand theft. We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to delete one adjudication and to conduct a restitution hearing.
Snyder pleaded no contest to grand theft. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of grand theft, withheld the imposition of sen tence, and placed Snyder on probation for a period of five years. That evening Snyder violated his probation. Following a violation of probation hearing, the trial court revoked Snyder’s probation, again adjudicated him guilty of grand theft, and sentenced him to three and one-half years’ incarceration.
Snyder argues that the initial sentence of five years’ probation is illegal because the trial court did not make the required written findings under chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1989), to sentence him as an adult. However, this court, in Davis v. State, 528 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988), held that “the need for such written reasons has been obviated” when the adjudication is entered pursuant to a plea agreement. Moreover, Snyder’s attorney expressly waived the required findings under chapter 39. Thus, we conclude that Snyder’s sentence is not illegal.
The state concedes that the trial court erred in adjudicating Snyder guilty twice for the same offense. On remand, the trial court is to vacate the second adjudication. See Phillips v. State, 582 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
As to restitution, the original judgment states, “FINE OF $5.25. RESTITUTION ORDERED WITHIN 2 YEARS.” As a special condition of probation, the probation order stated that Snyder would, by February 7, 1993, pay restitution to the victim “[i]n an amount to be determined at a restitution hearing and set forth in a modification order.” Our record does not reflect that the trial court has established the amount of the restitution. Although the record indicates that the trial court intended Snyder’s probation officer to establish the amount of restitution, the amount of restitution must be determined by the trial court, and the trial court cannot delegate this duty to a probation officer. See Nathan v. State, 520 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Perry v. State, 513 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The state argues that the issue of restitution is moot because the trial court revoked Snyder’s probation and the trial court did not order Snyder to pay restitution in the sentence. We conclude, however, that the statutes require that a court shall order restitution to a victim who has suffered a loss, unless the court states on the record clear and compelling reasons for not ordering restitution. See § 775.-089(l)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat. (1989). This record does not reflect that the trial court has withdrawn its final judgment which required restitution. Therefore, the trial court, upon remand, may establish the amount of restitution or provide reasons for not ordering restitution.
Based on the above, we affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to delete the second grand theft adjudication and to resolve the matter of restitution.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Snyder, 673 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1996)…a rifle in his backyard. Nine days after the shooting incident, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Snyder’s treatment as an adult for the grand theft conviction, but remanded the case to correct other sentencing problems. Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The State filed an information charging Snyder with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon pursuant to section 790.23. After a bench trial, Snyder was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to three and one-half years’ imprisonme…
-
Snyder v. State, 650 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…, for firing a Colt AR-15 rifle in his backyard. Nine days after the shooting incident, this court affirmed Mr. Snyder’s 1991 conviction and treatment as an adult, and remanded his case for correction of certain sentencing problems. Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . In Wheeler, this court held that a person could not be charged as a felon in possession of a firearm while the predicate felony was pending on appeal. In Mr. Snyder’s case, the trial court tried to distinguish Wheeler because…
-
Timmie Ray Barron v. State, 598 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ion of the amount of restitution and only the preliminary responsibility for determining the amount of restitution was delegated to the Department of Corrections. We have recently decided this issue contrary to the state’s position. Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Based on Snyder, we remand to the trial court to establish the amount of restitution. RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.…
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
- Davis v. State, 528 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Las Perry v. State, 513 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Phillips v. State, 582 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Jones v. State, 582 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Birthisel v. Birthisel, 520 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Nathan v. State, 520 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)