Case Name: Victor R. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-31
Citations: 677 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. 95-2497
Parties: Victor R. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 677
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
Victor R. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-2497.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 31, 1996.
Rehearing Denied July 29, 1996.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Childs, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
Victor R. Roberts, a 14 year old juvenile, appeals his conviction and sentence as an adult for the crime of sexual battery pursuant to section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). He contends the trial court erred when it failed to issue a written order supporting its decision to impose adult sanctions. We affirm in paid; and reverse in part.
An amended information was filed against Roberts, which charged him as an adult, with sexual battery and attempted sexual battery. The victim was also 14 years of age. Roberts entered a plea of nolo contendere to sexual battery, and the state agreed to nolle prosequi the charge of attempted sexual battery. Although there was no agreement with respect to the sentence, Roberts entered the plea freely and voluntarily and the trial court thoroughly explained the maximum possible sentence in the Department of Corrections. The state recommended that Roberts be sentenced as a youthful offender. Robert's attorney and a counselor from the Department of Juvenile Justice recommended that he be sentenced as a juvenile to a level 8 facility. There, they argued, he would be rehabilitated in the sexual offender program.
Nevertheless, the trial court sentenced Roberts to 8.9 years in the Department of Corrections. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court gave its reasons for concluding that sentencing Roberts as a juvenile was inappropriate. The trial court reviewed Roberts' lengthy record, which included armed robbery, attempted robbery with a weapon, extortion, criminal mischief, and battery. The trial court also noted that Roberts was on community supervision with the Department of Juvenile Justice at the time he committed the sexual battery. Because no written order regarding the imposition of adult sanctions was prepared by the trial court, we must reverse and remand for resentencing.
Prior to 1 October 1994, a trial judge who sentenced a juvenile as an adult was required to prepare a written order with extensive findings supporting the adult sentence. § 39.059(7)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993). Subsequent to 1 October 1994, the trial court is still required to enter a written order supporting the decision to sentence the juvenile as an adult, but the order is presumed correct and does not need to be as specific. Section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.) reads:
Any decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing, but is presumed appropriate, and the court is not required to set forth specific findings or enumerate the criteria in this subsection as any basis for its decision to impose adult sanctions.
In this case, no order was prepared or filed, but the state argues that the judgment and sentence are sufficient to comply with the statute. We disagree. The statute is clear on its face that the decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing. Further, the statute would be redundant if the judgment and sentence could satisfy the statute. A judgment and sentence along with the defendant's fingerprints must be entered in all felony convictions whether the defendant is an adult or a juvenile sentenced as an adult. See § 921.241, Fla.Stat. (1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, reverse the sentence, and we remand for the entry of a written order supporting the decision to impose adult sanctions. Grayson v. State, 671 So.2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 662 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), rev. denied, 669 So.2d 252 (Fla.1996).
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. § 794.011(5), Fla.Stat. (1993).
. § 794.011(5); 777.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).