JOHN LUTZ, 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.
John Lutz appeals his conviction and adult sentence for burglary and grand theft committed as a minor. The court affirms because the effective date of an amended statute eliminated the former requirement for contemporaneous written findings supporting adult sanctions, and Lutz's sentencing occurred after the amendment became effective.
The court held no error occurred because Lutz's sentencing occurred after the effective date of the amendment to section 39.059(7)(d), which eliminated the requirement for specific written findings and enumeration of criteria for imposing adult sanctions. The amended statute applied retroactively to Lutz at his sentencing hearing.
[1] A recent amendment to Florida Statutes section 39.059(7) deleted the requirement of contemporaneous written findings for adult sentencing, thereby legislatively overrulin…
[2] A procedural amendment to a statute applies retroactively to a defendant sentenced after the amendment's effective date, even if the offense occurred prior to the amendme…
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“Any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing, but is presumed appropriate, and the court is not required to set forth specific findings or enumerate the criteria in this subsection as any basis for its decision to impose adult sanctions.”
The amended statute that became effective October 1, 1994, eliminating the former requirement for contemporaneous written findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLutz was seventeen years old when he committed burglary of a structure and third degree grand theft. The trial court sentenced him as an adult. Four d…
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 Ex Post Facto Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, John Lutz, defendant below (Defendant), appeals a final judgment of guilt and adult sentence for burglary of a structure and third degree grand theft. Because a recent amendment to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1993), which deleted the requirement of contemporaneous written findings for adult sentencing became effective prior to Defendant’s sentencing, we affirm.
Defendant was seventeen at the time he committed the crime. However, after considering the criteria of former section 39.059(7), the trial court sentenced Defendant as an adult. On January 24, 1995, four days after oral sentencing, the trial court filed a written order nunc pro tunc January 20, 1995, imposing adult sanctions which listed the criteria of former section 39.059(7).
Previously, section 39.059(7)(d) provided that “[a]ny decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing and in conformity with each of the above criteria. The court shall render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.” The Florida Supreme Court has held that the trial court is required to reduce the oral findings of fact and articulated reasons to writing without substantive change on the same date. Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla.1993). In Troutman, because the written findings were issued three days after sentencing and the findings and reasons were merely conclusory, the supreme court found that the trial court made inadequate findings. Id; see also Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (sentence remanded because adequate written findings issued eleven days after oral sentence nunc pro tunc to the sentencing date could not avoid the contemporaneous requirement of Troutman).
Effective October 1, 1994, the amended section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), now provides:
(d) Any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing, but is presumed appropriate, and the court is not required to set forth specific findings or enumerate the criteria in this subsection as any basis for its decision to impose adult sanctions.
Ch. 94-209, § 51, at 834-35, Laws of Fla. This amendment legislatively overruled Troutman ⅛ strict compliance requirement of contemporaneous written findings. See Sales v. State, 652 So. 2d 513, 514 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
In Shaw v. State, 645 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), this court reversed the appellant’s adult sentence entered before the effective date, and remanded for the trial court to make specific written findings. There, we noted that the amended statute was inapplicable to sentences in the appeal “pipeline” rendered prior to the effective date of the amendment. Id. at 69-70.
Here, however, even though Defendant committed his offense prior to the amendment’s effective date, his sentencing occurred after the effective date of the amendment. Thus, the amended statute should have applied retroactively to Defendant at his sentencing hearing. See Thomas v. State, 662 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (rejecting appellant’s claim that court erred in failing to set forth findings of suitability for adult sanctions; applying procedural amendment retroactively to appellant sentenced after effective date did not constitute ex post facto violation because appellant’s punishment would not be affected).
In the instant case, because Defendant’s sentencing occurred after the effective date of the amendment to section 39.059(7)(d), no error occurred at Defendant’s sentencing when the trial court failed to make the contemporaneous written findings formerly required by section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1993), and Troutman.
We find that the restitution issue has been waived. See Sims v. State, 637 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chauncey L. Davis v. State, 677 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…cision to impose a youthful offender sanction be in writing. Appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender on January 3,1995. The 1994 amendments to section 39.059, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), controlled at the time of sentencing. Lutz v. State, 664 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Prior to the amendments, section 39.059 made no provision for a separate category of sanction into which a youthful offender would fit; sentencing was classified as either a juvenile or an adult sanction. § 39.059(7)(c) & (e), F…
-
Cemel Grayson v. State, 671 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…So. 2d 1204 (Fla.4th DCA 1994). We have held that the amended statute should be applied retroactively to defendants who committed their offenses prior to 1994, [*856] but were sentenced after the effective date of the amendment. See Lutz v. State, 664 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla.4th DCA 1995); Thomas v. State, 662 So. 2d 1334, 1336 (Fla.1st DCA 1995). As the state concedes, the trial court did not sentence defendant in accordance with the amended statute. Although eliminating the requirement imposed by Troutman,…
-
Collins v. State, 685 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…aiver, a plea agreement does not waive a juvenile’s right to a written determination of the suitability of adult sanctions). Because Collins was sentenced after October 1, 1994, the 1994 version of section 39.057 applies to this case. Lutz v. State, 664 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court no longer needs to make specific factual findings concerning adult sanctions, but the statute still requires that a decision to impose adult sanctions be in writing. § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994);…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Jackson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Thomas v. State, 662 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sims v. State, 637 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Major v. State, 652 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Shaw v. State, 645 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)