570 So. 2d 1123 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1990
Appellant seeks to reverse the imposition of adult sanctions on the ground that the trial court did not consider all of the factors enumerated in section 39.111(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), before imposing sentence. We affirm.
Appellant pled no contest to charges of burglary and petit theft, and he was adjudicated guilty of those charges. Appellant was seventeen years old when the offenses were committed. Deciding that adult sanctions were appropriate, the court sentenced appellant as a youthful offender and recommended appellant attend boot camp for 18 months, to be followed by three years probation for the burglary charge. On the petit theft charge, appellant was given a sentence of 60 days, which was to run concurrently with the other sentence. The sentencing hearing transcript reveals that prior to the time of sentencing, the court had received the predisposition report (PDR) and the presentence investigation report (PSI). The day after the sentence was imposed, the trial court issued its written reasons for imposing adult sanctions in compliance with section 39.111(7)(d). Appellant makes no argument that the written reasons are in any way insufficient. Although the sentencing court did not read aloud the “checklist” provided in section
