Case Name: Maurice ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-03-20
Citations: 309 So. 2d 576
Docket Number: No. U-445
Parties: Maurice ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: RAWLS, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 309
Pages: 576–578

Head Matter:
Maurice ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. U-445.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 20, 1975.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
BOYER, Judge.-
We here consider, among other things, applicability to this particular case of Rule 3.710 RCrP. Mitchum v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 292 So.2d 620 and Barber v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 293 So.2d 710 are both distinguishable because they each involve a factual situation in which the offender was over 18 years of age. However, the discussions of the rule therein contained are here applicable.
In July of 1973 appellant was convicted of a felony and placed on probation. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated assault and of the use of a firearm'in the commission of a felony. Appellant was then 17 years of age. Immediately following announcement of the jury's verdict the trial court, without presentence investigation, sentenced appellant to five years for aggravated assault and 15 years for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, both sentences to run concurrently. At the same time the trial judge revoked appellant's probation incident to the July 1973 felony conviction and sentenced him to five years imprisonment to run concurrently with the other two sentences.
Rule 3.710 RCrP prohibits imposition of sentence (other than probation) without the benefit of presentence investigation on any defendant found guilty of a first felony offense or found guilty of a felony while under the age of 18 years. Clearly appellant's convictions for aggravated assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony were not his first felony offenses. However, equally clearly, appellant was under 18 years of age. Regarding defendants under 18 years of age the rule provides:
"No sentence or sentences other than probation shall be imposed on any defendant found guilty of a felony while under the age of 18 years, until after such investigation has first been made and considered by the sentencing judge."
The rule is mandatory. (Mitchum v. State, supra)
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for the offenses of aggravated assault and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony since both offenses were part of a single transaction, citing Cone v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 12. The State agrees, confessing error, but suggests that the sentence for five years for aggravated assault should be eliminated without the necessity of bringing the defendant back before the trial judge for resentencing, citing Carr v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1972, 264 So.2d 871.
We have considered the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, as to the sentence of five years for aggravated assault, same is hereby vacated and set aside: As to the other sentences, they too are vacated and set aside and this case is remanded for a pre-sentence investigation pursuant to Rule 3.-710 RCrP, and thereupon further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
RAWLS, C. J., concurs.
McCORD, J., concurs specially.