286 So.3d 294
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant was charged as an adult for lewd and lascivious battery committed at age 17 after the State transferred prosecution under §985.557(1)(b).
- While the case was pending he was later charged with two grand theft offenses; he pled in spring 2018 and a PSI was prepared.
- The PSI omitted the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) comments/recommendations required by §985.565(3)(a).
- At sentencing (when appellant was 20) defense did not object to the omission; defense argued for youthful-offender treatment and presented character witnesses; the court imposed 96.45 months (lowest permissible under the CPC) and concurrent sentences on other counts.
- Appellant filed a Rule 3.800(b) motion post-appeal asserting the PSI omission violated §985.565(3)(a); the trial court denied the motion and appellant appealed.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding the claim unpreserved (a procedural error at sentencing, not a sentencing error correctable under rule 3.800(b)) and, alternatively, harmless because appellant was an adult at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PSI’s omission of DJJ recommendations (required by §985.565(3)) warranted relief | Omission violated the statute and required correction via Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) | Appellant waived the requirement by not objecting; 3.800(b) corrects errors in the sentence, not procedural errors at sentencing; omission harmless because appellant was an adult | Affirmed: issue unpreserved (error in sentencing process, not the sentence); even if preserved, omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because appellant was an adult at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (limits relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) to errors in the sentence itself, not procedural errors at sentencing)
- Jackson v. State, 952 So. 2d 613 (discusses distinction between sentencing errors and errors during the sentencing process)
- Smith v. State, 762 So. 2d 929 (noted defendant should preserve claim about missing DJJ recommendations, but that statement was dicta and predated Jackson)