ROBERT M. FRATTALLONE, 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.
Robert Frattallone appealed his youthful offender sentence for dealing in stolen property and firearm possession. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly used a form checklist rather than making individualized findings as required by statute, and remanded for resentencing with corrected scoresheet calculations.
The trial court's use of a form checklist does not satisfy statutory requirements for individualized findings on suitability of adult sanctions. The scoresheet contained multiple errors that must be corrected. The sentence is reversed and remanded for resentencing with proper individualized findings and corrected scoresheet calculations.
[1] A trial court's execution of a form checklist does not satisfy the statutory requirement for making individualized findings regarding each criterion for determining the s…
[2] A sentence imposed as an adult sanction for a minor must be reversed if the trial court fails to make and reduce to writing the appropriate individualized findings requir…
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“The execution of a form checklist does not satisfy the requirement of section 39.059(7)(c) that individualized findings be made with regard to each of the criteria set forth in that statute for determining the suitability of adult sanctions.”
Establishes the core holding that form checklists are insufficient to meet statutory requirements for suitability findings in youthful offender sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrattallone was certified for prosecution as an adult and charged with dealing in stolen property, grand theft of a firearm, and possession of a firea…
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 Legal Status Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Frattallone appeals his youthful offender sentence for dealing in stolen property and possession of a firearm by a minor. He raises several issues, but we find merit only in his contentions that his scoresheet has several errors and the trial court erred in sentencing him as an adult without properly making the suitability findings required by section 39.059(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1991).
After Frattallone was certified for prosecution as an adult, the state filed an information charging him with dealing in stolen property, grand theft of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a minor. He changed his plea to guilty, and the trial court dismissed the grand theft charge and sentenced him as a youthful offender to time served for the possession charge and two years’ state prison followed by four years’ probation for the dealing in stolen property charge. The court filed a document entitled “Determination of the Suitability of Imposing Adult Sanctions,” which is a form checklist containing all of the criteria set forth in section 39.059(7)(c), some of which were checked off.
The execution of a form checklist does not satisfy the requirement of section 39.059(7)(c) that individualized findings be made with regard to each of the criteria set forth in that statute for determining the suitability of adult sanctions. Satalino v. State, 652 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Messam v. State, 640 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we must reverse Frattallone’s sentence and remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may again impose adult sanctions provided it makes and reduces to writing the appropriate individualized findings required by section 39.059(7)(c). Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla.1993). Frattallone has pointed to several errors in his scoresheet which the state concedes must be corrected before he is resenteneed. Specifically, grand theft should not be listed or scored as an additional offense, no points should be scored for legal status, and the state prison months calculation must be made in accordance with the rules set forth on the scoresheet.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Street v. State, 665 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…findings specific to the juvenile, the juvenile’s offenses, or the juvenile’s prior record, is legally insufficient to support the imposition of adult sanctions. See Messam v. State, 640 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Frattallone v. State, 658 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Satalino v. State, 652 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). There are exceptions to a trial court entering detañed written findings. As examples, the trial court is not required to make the written findings if the juvemle has been se…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Messam v. State, 640 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Satalino v. State, 652 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)