Stickles v. State, 88-02129
| Decision Date | 24 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-02129,88-02129 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1400 Stephen STICKLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah A. Goins, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. General, Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Stephen Stickles, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was found guilty of battery. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The appellant, who was seventeen years old at all times material to this appeal, was tried as an adult for the crime of aggravated battery. After a jury found the appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of battery, the trial court sentenced him, as an adult, to serve one year in the county jail and imposed costs in the amount of $75. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence.
We find no merit in the appellant's contention that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury concerning self defense and, accordingly, affirm his conviction.
We agree, however, with the appellant's contention that the trial court erred by imposing adult sanctions upon him without entering a proper written order. When a child has been tried as an adult and has been found to have committed a violation of Florida law, as in this case, before adult sanctions can be imposed, the trial court must make a determination as to whether adult sanctions are suitable. Sec. 39.111(7)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). If after considering the six criteria required by section 39.111(7)(c), the court decides to impose adult sanctions, the decision to do so must be in writing and it must be in conformity with each of said criteria. The court must render specific findings of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. Sec. 39.111(7)(d).
The trial court did not render a written order complying with these statutory requirements. Although a transcript which is made part of the appellate record can satisfy the writing requirements of section 39.111(7)(d), it must contain the requisite findings of facts and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Martin v. State, 547 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Pimentel v. State, 442 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The transcript in this case does not contain these findings and reveals that the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Judge v. State
...in section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) is an erroneous sentence. See Sec. 39.059(7)(d), Fla.Stat. (1991); Stickles v. State, 579 So.2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The error is considered fundamental and therefore an objection need not be made in the trial court to preserve the error f......
- Leftwich v. State
- Bay Hosp. Inc. v. Broxson, 90-2429
-
Newberry v. State, 91-2055
...by section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). See Stanley v. State, 582 So.2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Stickles v. State, 579 So.2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Tighe v. State, 571 So.2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand this case for resentencing. ......