Woods v. State, 76-2548
| Decision Date | 21 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2548,76-2548 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 632 |
| Parties | Willis C. WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction and sentence on the charge of robbery with a firearm. Defendant, who was 16 years old at the time of the offense, was sentenced to 53 years and 39 days. He was transferred from the Juvenile Division to the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court and was tried, convicted and sentenced as an adult. Rather than sentencing the defendant to life in prison, the court sentenced defendant to his life expectancy of 53 years and 39 days.
Defendant contends error was committed in the initial order waiving juvenile jurisdiction to the Criminal Division and in the subsequent trial before a jury in the Criminal Division. We find the trial itself to be without error but reverse the waiver order.
Waiver of juvenile jurisdiction here was governed by § 39.09(2) Fla.Stat. (1977). This statute provides in subsection (e) that "when a child is transferred for criminal prosecution, the court shall set forth in writing its reasons for the transfer." In reviewing the trial court's order of December 16, 1977, wherein jurisdiction was waived, we note this order does not contain an actual statement of reasons. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978) for an analagous discussion of the reasons necessary in an order granting new trial.
The first reason stated by the trial court is the serious nature of the offense. This is one of the statutory considerations and appears to be a mere recitation of the consideration rather than any actual finding or record reference about the nature and seriousness of the particular crime. The second stated reason is the history of juvenile offenses of the child. Under the circumstances of this waiver hearing, this was a first offense. While there was a possible overdose of drugs taken by this child when he was 13 or 14 years old, there is no previous offense of which this child has ever been found guilty. The next reason stated is the "failure of the juvenile system to rehabilitate him from criminal acts." The failure was due to the child's never having been within the system of juvenile rehabilitation. The juvenile had never had any true exposure to the juvenile system. The last stated reason is the "report and recommendation of the youth counselor." The trial court could not have relied upon this recommendation since it was strongly and unequivocally against waiver of jurisdiction. The youth counselor who testified was most definitely of the opinion that the child should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kazakoff v. State
...and entry of a proper order addressing the omitted factor without the necessity of holding a new hearing. In Woods v. State, 369 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982), the court also affirmed a juvenile's conviction after a jury verdict. As in Spencer, it fo......
-
G. D. W. v. State, s. 80-383 and 80-1131
...Fla.Stat. (1979). The requirement unquestionably is meant to facilitate intelligent appellate review. Accord, Woods v. State, 369 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The requirement coincides with the procedures mandated by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Because the trial court failed ......
-
Corraliza v. State, 79-1355
...accordingly, the issue sought to be preserved is not properly before us, Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979); see Woods v. State, 369 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Mitchell v. State, 351 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State v. D. R. S., 344 So.2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Spencer v. S......
-
Townsend v. State, MM-216
...order in this case precludes effective appellate review, and it fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. Woods v. State, 369 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The court should state its reasons for transferring the child in each case. Each case will be different, and the court may......