Case Name: Chinaer McDANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-06-26
Citations: 583 So. 2d 349
Docket Number: No. 90-1120
Parties: Chinaer McDANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 583
Pages: 349–356

Head Matter:
Chinaer McDANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-1120.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 26, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1991.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
STONE, Judge.
We affirm the appellant-juvenile's conviction and sentence for attempted first degree murder.
Initially there was no abuse of discretion in the court's refusal to instruct the jury on the reputation of the victim for violence where there was no evidence that the appellant knew of that reputation. Cf Hager v. State, 439 So.2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Nunez v. State, 542 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See also Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 986 (Fla.1977); Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
The appellant also asserts that she was sentenced as an adult without full compliance by the court with the finding require ments of section 39.111(7)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides:
(7) When a child has been transferred for criminal prosecution and the child has been found to have committed a violation of Florida law, the following procedure shall govern the disposition of the case: (c) Suitability or nonsuitability for adult sanctions shall be determined by the court before any other determination of disposition. The suitability determination shall be made by reference to the following criteria:
1. The seriousness of the offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires adult disposition.
2. Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner.
3. Whether the offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted.
4. The sophistication and maturity of the child, as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living.
5. The record and previous history of the child, including:
a. Previous contacts with the department, the Department of Corrections, other law enforcement agencies, and courts,
b. Prior periods of probation or community control,
c. Prior adjudications that the child committed a violation of law, and
d. Prior commitments to institution.
In the course of an argument and some mutual pushing and shoving the appellant pulled a gun, stating, "I'm going [to] kill me a punk bitch." The victim turned and ran away. The appellant followed, shooting the victim in the back and arm. Prior to sentencing, the court considered a predisposition report. The court also heard brief testimony from the juvenile's mother and grandmother, apprising the court that the appellant was the mother of a young child and that she was a good girl.
The trial court made these written findings concerning appellant's suitability for adult sanctions:
1. This case involves a life felony, Attempted First Degree Murder in which a thirteen year old girl was shot in her back and arm.
2. The facts of this case are such that the Defendant in this case engaged in an argument with the victim over a boy and then the Defendant pulled out a handgun and chased the victim some thirty feet shooting at least five times. Two of the shots hit the victim. One shot hit the victim in her arm and the other in her back. The bullet lodged within half an inch of the victim's spinal cord.
3. Whether the offense was against persons or property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted. This offense was against a thirteen year old, a minor, Monica Rush. Although no permanent injury occurred, she still has two scars from the bullet wound. The bullet is still lodged in her back, as it is too dangerous to try and remove it because it is too close to the spinal cord. She is not in any danger at this point, but will always carry the bullet and still has irritation and soreness in her back as a result of the bullet wound she received.
4. The sophistication and maturity of the Defendant. I did not find that there was any sophistication and maturity in this crime.
5. The record and previous history of Defendant. The Defendant has a prior incident involving a gun.
6. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the Defendant if she is assigned to juvenile services and facilities is very unlikely based on her violent and aggressive manner in using a handgun. Furthermore, this offense was committed on October 26, 1987, some four to five months after being placed on community control as a juvenile. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the juvenile services and facilities cannot adequately rehabilitate this young person, as she has shown she is a violent and aggressive person with no regard for human life.
Appellant contends that these findings are not sufficiently detailed and specific to comply with the statutory mandate. See Flowers v. State, 546 So.2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Gooden v. State, 586 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Leonard v. State, 522 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In order to sustain the sentencing of a juvenile as an adult, the record must reflect that the trial court considered each of the statutory criteria, and must contain specific findings and reasons for the court's decision. § 39.-111(7)(d). Here, in our judgment, the record reflects that the trial court has done so.
In Posey v. State, 501 So.2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) the adult sentence of a juvenile was reversed because the order imposing sanctions did not in any manner address the criteria in section 39.111(7)(c)4 of the statute and in Flowers, this court reversed a juvenile's sentence because of the failure of the court to consider the statutory criteria prior to sentencing. In that opinion, we pointed out that the trial court, on remand, should comment on the juvenile's home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living, considering the child's level of sophistication and maturity. Here, the trial court in considering criteria number 4 has not commented in writing on each of these aspects of appellant's life, choosing instead to state essentially that the child was immature and unsophisticated as reflected by her conduct. The court obviously determined that the other factors outweighed this lack of sophistication.
Here, although the court's written findings as to criteria number 4 were brief, we conclude that the record is sufficiently specific to reflect that the court considered all of the statutory criteria. We do not read Flowers to mandate that certain specific language be used as to each of the factors to be considered in determining the sophistication level of the appellant where the court has obviously determined that the child's lack of sophistication and maturity are outweighed by the other statutory factors, and the record reflects that the court is aware of and has considered the sophistication and maturity of the child in reaching its judgment.
Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.