Case Name: Stanley WYKRETOWICZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-02-22
Citations: 264 So. 3d 389
Docket Number: Case No. 5D18-316
Parties: Stanley WYKRETOWICZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 264
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Stanley WYKRETOWICZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 5D18-316
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Decision filed February 22, 2019
Aaron David Delgado, of Delgado & Romanik, PLLC, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, C.J., and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.
LAMBERT, J., concurring specially with opinion.
LAMBERT, J., concurring specially with opinion.
Stanley Wykretowicz was convicted after trial of culpable negligence, a lesser-included offense of the charged crime of neglect of a child causing great bodily harm. Because Wykretowicz has not shown reversible error here, I agree with the affirmance of his conviction.
I briefly write to address the sentence imposed. The trial court withheld an adjudication of guilt and sentenced Wykretowicz to serve sixty days in the county jail with sixty days of jail credit. This was improper. See State v. Scarantino , 543 So.2d 399, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) ("Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.670 and Thomas v. State , 356 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), adjudication cannot be withheld if a jail term is imposed."). Based upon the trial court's intent to withhold an adjudication of guilt here, it should have placed Wykretowicz on probation, withheld the adjudication of guilt, and imposed the sixty days of incarceration as a special condition of the probation. See Tucker v. State , 78 So.3d 36, 37 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing State v. Green , 581 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ). However, because the State has not challenged the sentence in this direct appeal, this issue has not been preserved for our present review.