STATE v. B.T.G., A Child, Appellee. (2021)

The State of Florida appeals the juvenile sanction imposed upon B.T.G. after he was charged as an adult pursuant to section 985.557(2), Florida Statutes (2018), and sentenced pursuant to section 985.557(2)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes (2018). The State claims that the foregoing statute prohibited the trial judge from imposing juvenile sanctions and required criminal sanctions instead because B.T.G. had earlier been adjudicated for an offense involving a firearm.^* Because there is insufficient record evidence to support a finding that B.T.G had a previous adjudication or withhold of adjudication of a forcible felony or offense involving a firearm, or had been previously placed in a residential program as enumerated in section 985.557(2)(d)2.a., we affirm. See, e.g., State v. G.B., 588 So. 2d 253, 254–55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the burden is on the State as appellant to produce a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   The 2018 version of section 985.557 was in effect at the time B.T.G. was charged. But in 2019, subsection (2) of this section was deleted, so that a court could impose juvenile sanctions pursuant to section 985.565, Florida Statutes (2019) even if the juvenile had a prior adjudication that would have disqualified him for juvenile sanctions under 2018 law. See Ch. 2019-167, § 76, Laws of Fla. It is uncertain whether the 2018 law applies to B.T.G.’s sentence because he was not sentenced until after the 2019 law became effective. See § 775.022(4), Fla. Stat. (2019) (requiring a court to sentence an offender in accordance with current law if the punishment has been reduced by statutory amendment). However, we need not decide this question because the record is insufficient to justify reversal.

Winokur, J.

B.L. Thomas and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.