State v. Fureman, 161 So. 3d 403

Fureman responded to a Craigslist "Parenting Help Wanted" ad posted by undercover police and communicated over ~3 weeks by email and phone with an agent posing as a 14‑year‑old girl’s mother.
He acknowledged intent to have sex with the minor, traveled from Lake County to Orange County for that purpose, and was found with condoms and lubricant at arrest.
He pleaded open to: (1) traveling to meet a minor to engage in an illegal act (second‑degree felony); (2) solicitation of a minor via computer (third‑degree felony); and (3) attempted lewd or lascivious battery (third‑degree felony).
The trial court withheld adjudication on all counts, downwardly departed from the guideline sentence under §921.0026(2)(j) (unsophisticated manner), and imposed community control then probation instead of the guideline incarceration.
The State timely objected to the withhold of adjudication and to the refusal to impose mandatory sex‑offender probation conditions.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded: it found insufficient evidence to support the unsophisticated‑manner departure, improper withhold of adjudication on the second‑degree felony, and error in declining to impose mandatory sex‑offender probation conditions.

Issue	State's Argument	Fureman’s Argument	Held
Whether the downward departure (unsophisticated manner) was supported by competent, substantial evidence	Departure improper because defendant took multiple deliberate steps (emails, calls, travel) showing sophistication	Offense was unsophisticated because police initiated contact via Craigslist ad	Reversed: evidence showed several deliberate steps; unsophistication not supported
Whether withholding adjudication on the second‑degree felony was permissible	Withhold unlawful absent a written request by the state or written statutory findings by the court	Court withheld adjudication despite State objection	Reversed: judge failed to make required written findings and State did not request withhold
Whether sex‑offender probation conditions were mandatory for attempted lewd or lascivious battery under §800.04	Mandatory: attempted sexual battery falls under the sexual battery statute so §948.30 conditions must be imposed	Trial court refused, reasoning plea to attempt (§777.04) made §948.30 inapplicable	Reversed: precedent treats attempted sexual battery as an offense under the sexual battery statute; §948.30 mandatory conditions apply

State v. Leverett, 44 So.3d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA) (standard of review for downward departure)
State v. Resh, 992 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA) (statutory basis is permissible reason to depart)
State v. Salgado, 948 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA) (use of "distinctive and deliberate steps" to assess sophistication)
State v. Subido, 925 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA) (difficulty of showing sexual battery of a minor was committed in an unsophisticated fashion)
State v. Garza, 118 So.3d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA) (withholding adjudication on second‑degree felony requires written request or written findings)
State v. Thurman, 791 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA) (attempted sexual battery is governed by the sexual battery statute for probation conditions)
Wilcox v. State, 783 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA) (attempted capital sexual battery treated under sexual battery statute)
Donovan v. State, 821 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA) (reaffirming that attempted sexual battery is within sexual battery statute)
State v. Springer, 965 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA) (§948.30 mandates specific probation conditions; court cannot alter)