author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Donald David DILLBECK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Donald David Dillbeck, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., Respondent.
    Nos. SC02-2044, SC03-1123.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Aug. 26, 2004.

      George W. Blow, III, Live Oak, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Ap-pellee/Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Donald David Dillbeck, an inmate under sentence of death, appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of one of Dillbeck’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but we remand the remaining claims and instruct the circuit court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). We also deny Dillbeck’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I. INTRODUCTION

Dillbeck was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed burglary. In accordance with the jury’s eight-to-four recommendation, the trial judge sentenced Dillbeck to death for the murder conviction, finding five aggravating circumstances, one statutory mitigating circumstance, and several nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Dillbeck also received two consecutive life sentences for the armed robbery and armed burglary convictions. We affirmed the convictions and the sentences on direct appeal. Dillbeck v. State, 643 So.2d 1027 (Fla.1994).

Dillbeck filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief on April 23, 1997, and an amended motion on April 16, 2001. In the amended motion, Dillbeck raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, some falling under the “ineffectiveness per se,” “presumed prejudice” standard of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and some falling under the traditional, two-pronged standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, Dillbeck claimed that without his consent, his trial counsel conceded that Dillbeck was guilty of first-degree murder. Dillbeck argued that he, therefore, was entitled to relief under Cronic and Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So.2d 618 (Fla.2000) (applying Cronic to claim that counsel conceded defendant’s guilt to first-degree murder without defendant’s affirmative and explicit consent), on the ground that counsel’s performance was ineffective per se. Second, Dillbeck claimed that his trial counsel conceded the applicability of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance without his consent. Dillbeck argued that he, therefore, was entitled to relief under Cronic and Nixon on the ground that counsel’s performance was ineffective per se or, alternatively, under the traditional, two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), on the ground that counsel’s performance was deficient and he was prejudiced by the deficiency. Dillbeck also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland for (1) failing during voir dire to challenge certain jurors for cause, (2) failing to move for a change of venue, (3) failing to request a PET scan, and (4) introducing at the penalty phase details of Dillbeck’s criminal history. Finally, Dillbeck argued that at trial he was denied the presumption of innocence by being forced to wear restraints in the jury’s presence.

The circuit court conducted-an evidentia-ry hearing at which both Dillbeck and Dillbeck’s trial counsel testified. The circuit court then denied relief in an inelabo-rate order, stating only that Dillbeck’s motion was “without grounds for relief and ... there would be no benefit from a further recitation of the facts or argument by this Court.” State v. Dillbeck, Case No. 90-2795-AF (Fla.2d Cir. Ct. order filed Sept. 3, 2002) (“Order Denying Amended Motion' to Vacate Judgment of Conviction and Sentence”). Dillbeck now appeals the circuit court’s denial of relief. He also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that Florida’s capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).

II. REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

With the exception of Dillbeck’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective per se under Cronic and Nixon for conceding that he was guilty of first-degree murder without his consent,' which we will address below, we remand the ease to the circuit court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to all the claims Dillbeck has raised before this Court. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) requires postconviction trial courts to make such findings and conclusions. The rule provides as follows:

If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall grant a prompt hearing thereon and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the state attorney, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.

Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (emphasis added). “[T]he trial court’s failure ... to make findings of fact and conclusions of law violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).” Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 520, 524 (Fla.1999). “We have repeatedly stressed the need for trial judges to enter detailed orders in postconviction capital cases. The present order is completely inadequate and does not assist us in our review.” Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 720 (Fla.2001).

With the exception of Dillbeck’s Cronic/Nixon claim — that counsel conceded his guilt without his consent — all of the claims Dillbeck has raised before this Court must be analyzed under the two— pronged test of Strickland. Such claims present mixed questions of law and fact and, therefore, require us to employ a mixed standard of review: we defer to the trial court’s factual findings (to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial evidence), but we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033 (Fla.1999); see also Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 610 (Fla.2002); Porter v. State, 788 So.2d 917, 923 (Fla.2001). Because we cannot determine from the circuit court’s cursory order what its findings of fact and conclusions of law were as to each of Dillbeck’s claims, we remand the case to the circuit court to elaborate on its order by making such findings and conclusions in a detailed and timely manner.

III. COUNSEL’S CONCESSION OF GUILT

We need not remand Dillbeck’s claim that his counsel was ineffective per se for conceding that he was guilty of first-degree murder' without his consent. The record reveals that during voir dire and at trial, Dillbeck’s counsel repeatedly conceded that Dillbeck was guilty of felony murder. Dillbeck claims that he was not informed that counsel would make such concessions nor did he consent to counsel making such concessions. He argues that counsel’s assistance, therefore, was ineffective per se under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So.2d 618 (Fla.2000) (Nixon II), and Nixon v. State, 857 So.2d 172 (Fla.2003) (Nixon III). Dillbeck’s claim is without merit. After reviewing the trial record, we conclude, as a matter of law, that neither Cronic nor the Nixon line of cases applies to Dillbeck’s claim. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.

A.

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally are analyzed under the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Nixon II, 758 So.2d at 622 (“We emphasize that the Strickland standard normally applies to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”). Under Strickland, a defendant is entitled to relief if he can show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. However, if the defendant can demonstrate that counsel “entirely fail[ed] to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” the law will presume prejudice and deem counsel ineffective per se. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039.

We applied the presumed prejudice standard of Cronic in Nixon II. Nixon’s trial counsel told the jury during his opening statement that “there will be no question that [the victim] died a horrible, horrible death” and “there won’t be any question, none whatsoever, that my client, Joe Elton Nixon, caused [the victim’s] death.... That fact will be proved to your satisfaction beyond any reasonable doubt.” Nixon II, 758 So.2d at 620. During his closing argument, Nixon’s counsel told the jury: “I think you will find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the crimes charged, first-degree premeditated murder, kidnapping, robbery, and arson.” Id. We noted that Nixon’s counsel’s statements “were the functional equivalent of a guilty plea,” id. at 624, and we held that Cronic’s presumed prejudice standard would apply and counsel would be deemed ineffective per se if Nixon could “establish that he did not consent to counsel’s strategy” of conceding guilt. Id. at 623. Furthermore, we held that Nixon’s consent must have been “affirmative” and “explicit”; “[s]ilent acquiescence is not enough.” Id. at 624. We also held that “to avoid similar problems in the future ... if a trial judge ever suspects that a similar strategy [of conceding the defendant’s guilt] is being attempted by counsel for the defense, the judge should stop the proceedings and question the defendant on the record as to whether or not he or she consents to counsel’s strategy.” Id. at 625.

At the evidentiary hearing conducted by the circuit court on remand, Nixon’s trial counsel testified “that Nixon provided neither verbal nor nonverbal indication that he did or did not wish to pursue counsel’s strategy of conceding guilt.” Nixon III, 857 So.2d at 175-76. Testimony at the evidentiary hearing revealed only that “Nixon did nothing when asked his opinion regarding this trial strategy.” Id. at 175. Based on this testimony, the circuit court denied relief, holding that “Nixon’s pattern of interactions with counsel” demonstrated that “Nixon’s failure to approve or disapprove verbally was approval of counsel’s strategy.” Id. at 176. On appeal, we reversed the circuit court’s denial of relief. We held that Nixon was entitled to a new trial because “there [was] no competent, substantial evidence which established] that Nixon affirmatively and explicitly agreed to counsel’s strategy.” Id.

B.

Dillbeck argues that he is entitled to relief under Cronic and the Nixon cases. Dillbeck’s argument, however, is without merit. Initially, Dillbeck argues that he is entitled to relief because the trial court did not conduct an on-the-record inquiry to determine whether or not he consented to trial counsel’s strategy of conceding guilt. That requirement, however, was articulated by this Court nine years after Dill-beck’s trial and, by its own terms, was intended to be prospective only. See Nixon II, 758 So.2d at 625 (“[I]n order to avoid similar problems in the future, we hold that if a trial judge ever suspects that a similar strategy is being attempted ... the judge should stop the proceedings and question the defendant on the record ....”) (emphasis added).

Dillbeck also argues that he is entitled to relief under the Nixon line of eases because he did not consent affirmatively and explicitly to counsel’s strategy of conceding that he was guilty of felony murder. However, as we noted above, the trial record demonstrates conclusively, as a matter of law, that Dillbeck is not entitled to relief under Nixon. Two factors in the trial record compel this result. The first, and most important, factor is Dillbeck’s own trial testimony, which mirrored counsel’s strategy of conceding guilt to felony murder but contesting a finding of premeditation. Like Dillbeck’s counsel’s concessions to the jury, Dillbeck himself admitted at trial that he was guilty of felony murder, but he argued that the killing was not done with premeditation. Tr. at 1981-82. This is precisely the same concession Dillbeck’s counsel made and about which Dillbeck now complains.

The second factor that removes Dill-beck’s case from the scope of the Nixon cases and leads us to conclude that Dillbeck, as a matter of law, is not entitled to relief is that the State twice brought the Nixon issue to the trial court’s attention and requested that the judge question Dilleck to determine if he consented to counsel’s concessions of guilt. Id. at 325-26 (during voir dire); id. at 1647 (opening statement). Both times, Dillbeck’s trial counsel objected to any such inquiry, arguing that the matter was confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. Id. at 326-27 (voir dire); id. at 1648 (opening statement). When the State raised the issue during voir dire, the judge did not question Dillbeck, but he did ask for, and he received, counsel’s assurance that “[he had] discussed the matter with Mr. Dillbeck.” Tr. at 329. The judge then stated for the record:

I do find that [Dillbeck’s counsel] has assured me that he has discussed the strategy [of conceding guilt] with Mr. Dillbeck.... Mr. Dillbeck has been present throughout the inquiry of the jurors. I find that Mr. Dillbeck appears to be totally aware of the proceedings, that he has responded to each of the jurors that have come into the room, that he is well aware of what is going on.
... I do believe that if he in any way disagreed with the strategy of his lawyer in the. handling of this matter, that he could make that known to me, if he chose to do so. And he has not done so and I would also say that from, my experience with [Dillbeck’s counsel] ... it is inconceivable to me that [he] could be accused of being ineffective counsel....
So, at this point, I do decline to ask Mr. Dillbeck directly with regard to this question. But I would certainly give Mr. Dillbeck an opportunity to be heard on it if he chose to do so.
And I assume from his lack of response to my statement and the smile on his face at this time, that he does not intend to respond at this point.

Id. at 330-32 (emphasis added).' The judge explained that he was just trying to be cautious to avoid the problems that had arisen in Nixon and stated that he was “satisfied that this is a knowing procedure that both [counsel] and Mr. Dillbeck are proceeding in.” Tr. at 333. When the State again raised the issue, this time after Dillbeck’s counsel’s opening statement, Dillbeck’s counsel again objected to any questioning of Dillbeck. However, Dill-beck’s counsel assured the court that he had “discussed all this with my client.” Id. at 1648. The judge agreed with counsel that it would be improper to question Dillbeck, but he told counsel that “it would be very comforting to me if Mr. Dillbeck would be willing to say to the Court that he has discussed this matter with you and is aware of the consequences and you have explained it thoroughly to him.” Id. at 1650. Dillbeck’s counsel replied: “Well, he, probably would if I asked him to, but I think this is important.” Id. The judge then concluded the matter by stating:

I think that [Dillbeck’s counsel] has given me the assurances that I need to allow this matter to proceed.... I would assure anyone who reads this record ■that I believe this is the most effective strategy that [Dillbeck’s counsel] could implement.... Mr. Dillbeck has been present throughout all these proceedings. He was present throughout the voir dire examination and is obviously alert and intelligent and ... there is no question in my mind but [that] he understands fully what is happening here and would indicate an objection if he did not concur with it.

Id. at 1651-52 (emphasis added). The record reveals that Dillbeck was informed by the court of his right to object to his counsel’s strategy of conceding guilt, and he chose not to object.

For each of these reasons, we hold, as a matter of law, that Dillbeck is not entitled to relief under the Nixon line of cases. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.

IV. RING CLAIM

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dillbeck challenges the validity of his death sentence by arguing that Florida’s capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). We rejected similar claims in Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1070, 123 S.Ct. 662, 154 L.Ed.2d 564 (2002); King v. Moore, 831 So.2d 143 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1067, 123 S.Ct. 657, 154 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); and similar cases. Furthermore, one of the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court in this case was Dillbeck’s prior conviction of a violent felony, “a factor which under Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000),] and Ring need not be found by the jury.” Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 619 (Fla.2003); see also, e.g., Doorbal v. State, 837 So.2d 940, 963 (Fla.2003) (rejecting Ring claim where one of the aggravating circumstances found by the trial judge was defendant’s prior conviction for a violent felony), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 962, 123 S.Ct. 2647, 156 L.Ed.2d 663 (2003). Accordingly, we reject Dillbeck’s claim and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

V. CONCLUSION

We affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief on Dillbeck’s claim that his counsel was ineffective per se for conceding Dill-beck’s guilt to felony murder. However, with respect to the other claims in Dill-beck’s rule 3.850 motion, we remand to the circuit court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). We also deny Dillbeck’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs in result only.

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.

      . For a description of the underlying facts, see Dillbeck v. State, 643 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.1994).

      . The trial judge found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Dillbeck committed the murder while under a sentence of imprisonment; (2) Dillbeck previously had been convicted of another capital felony; (3) Dill-beck committed the murder during the course of a robbery and burglary; (4) Dillbeck committed the murder to effect escape; and (5) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Id. at 1028 n. 1 (citing § 921.141, Fla. Stat (1989)).

      . The trial court found that Dillbeck’s capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. Id. at 1028 n. 2 (citing § 921.141(6)00, Fla. Stat. (1989)).

      . The trial court found the following nonstat-utoiy mitigating circumstances, but gave little weight to several of them: (1) Dillbeck had an abusive childhood; (2) Dillbeck suffers from fetal alcohol effect as a result of his mother's alcohol consumption; (3) Dillbeck suffers from mental illness; (4) Dillbeck's mental illness is treatable; (5) Dillbeck was imprisoned at an early age in a violent prison; (6) Dill-beck has been a good and well-behaved inmate; (7) Dillbeck has a loving family; and (8) Dillbeck has demonstrated remorse. Id.

      . Dillbeck has not appealed the circuit court’s denial of relief on. his claim that he was denied the presumption of innocence by being forced to wear physical restraints in the jury’s presence nor on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a PET scan.

      . As we have noted, Dillbeck has not raised before this Court two of the claims rejected by the circuit court. See supra note 6. The circuit court need not address those claims on remand.

      . See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(D) (providing that after conducting an evidentiary hearing a trial court "shall render its order, ruling on each claim considered at the evi-dentiary hearing and all other claims raised in the motion, making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to each claim, and attaching or referencing such portions of the record as are necessary to allow for meaningful appellate review ”) (emphasis added) (applicable to postconviction motions filed on or after October 1, 2001).

      . This includes Dillbeck’s claim that counsel was ineffective for conceding the applicability of the "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), suggests that such a claim should be analyzed under the two-pronged standard of Strickland rather than the presumed-prejudice standard of Cronic. Although Cronic held that "[tjhere are ... circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified,” 466 U.S. at 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039, one of which is when "counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing,” id. at 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039, in Bell the Court stressed that "the attorney’s failure must he complete." 535 U.S. at 697, 122 S.Ct. 1843 (emphasis added). In Bell, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that Cronic’s presumption of prejudice should apply where counsel failed to introduce mitigating evidence and did not make a closing argument at the penalty phase; the Court held that "[t]he aspects of counsel's performance challenged by [the defendant] ... are plainly of the same ilk as other specific attorney errors we have held subject to Strickland's performance and prejudice components.” 535 U.S. at 697-98, 122 S.Ct. 1843. The Court's holding rested on the distinction it drew between “counsel’s] fail[ure] to oppose the prosecution throughout the sentencing proceeding as a whole” and "counsel’s] fail[ure] to do so at specific points.” Id. at 697, 122 S.Ct. 1843. "For purposes of distinguishing between the rule of Strickland and that of Cronic, this difference is not of degree but of kind.'' Id.

      Even assuming, as we do for the moment, that Dillbeck’s counsel did concede the applicability of the "heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance, Dillbeck alleges only that "counsel failed to [challenge the prosecution’s case] at specific points.” Id. He does not allege that "counsel failed to oppose the prosecution throughout the sentencing proceeding as a whole." Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, in order to prevail on this claim, as well as on the other claims which we remand to the circuit court, Dillbeck must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test by demonstrating that counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

      . Our approach in this situation is consistent with the approach taken by the district courts in similar situations. Both the First and Second Districts have recently remanded cases in which the circuit courts failed to make findings of fact as required by rule 3.850(d). See Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (remanding to the circuit court for factual findings because ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact which require an appellate court to defer to the factual findings of the trial court while independently reviewing its legal conclusions); Bunger v. State, 779 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (remanding "[b]ecause the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also failed to provide rationales for denying claims 2 and 3”).

      . During voir dire, counsel made the following statement (or something very similar) to virtually every prospective juror:
      I must tell you that if you sit on this juiy, you will find that Donald Dillbeck did commit this crime. You will find that it was a particularly brutal crime. The woman was stabbed repeatedly.
      Tr. at 209 (making statement to juror Whitley); see also, e.g., id. at 42, 60, 77, 88, 104, 124, 145, 162, 179 (making identical or similar statements to the first nine prospective jurors). In his opening statement and closing argument, counsel conceded that Dillbeck was guilty of felony murder. In his opening statement, counsel conceded that Dillbeck had killed the victim, and he told the jury that the two issues for them to decide were whether the killing had been premeditated and whether Dillbeck should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. Id. at 1639-40. Counsel told the jury:
      I can tell you, you will get to that second phase [the penalty phase]. You will get to the issue of life or death, regardless of whether you find this to be a premeditated murder or whether you find it to be what has been referred to as felony murder....
      As for the evidence, it is much as [the State] has said. The State, I’m sure, will do a veiy good job of convincing you, too, that my client did commit the crime. But I think you will see that that doesn't resolve this issue of premeditated design.

        Id. at 1640. In his closing argument, counsel argued that the State had not proven that the murder was premeditated. He urged the jury to "bring back a verdict of not guilty at least as to the premeditated murder,” stating that Dillbeck "committed some terrible crimes here but clearly the State has not proven that it was a premeditated killing. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt.” Id. at 2050-51.

      . See also Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 329 (Fla.1995) (holding that the requirement that a trial court must conduct an on-the-record inquiry when a defendant waives his right at the penalty phase to present mitigating evidence, articulated in Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1993), was to be applied prospectively only) ("[O]ur ruling in Koon by its own terms is prospective only.”).

      . As we noted above, Dillbeck’s trial took place nine years before we issued our opinion in Nixon II. Before Nixon II, there was no requirement that a trial judge conduct an on-the-record inquiry to determine whether a defendant consented to his counsel's concessions of guilt. See Nixon II, 758 So.2d at 625 ("[I]n order to avoid similar problems in the future, we hold that if a trial judge ever suspects that a similar strategy is being attempted ... the judge should stop the proceedings and question the defendant on the record ....”) (emphasis added). Therefore, despite the State's request, the judge did not err in refusing to question Dillbeck to determine if he consented to counsel’s strategy of conceding guilt.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LEWIS, J. PARIENTE, C.J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Geanetta MOORE a/k/a Jeanetta Moore, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC03-2136.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Aug. 26, 2004.

      Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Robert R. Wheeler, Tallahassee Bureau Chief and Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.
   LEWIS, J.

We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:

WHEN SENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE (§§ 921.002-921.0027, Fla. Stat.(1999)) FOR A VIOLATION OF A PROBATIONARY TERM ORIGINALLY IMPOSED TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO A PRISON TERM IMPOSED FOR A DIFFERENT OFFENSE, DO Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), AND ITS PROGENY REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO AWARD CREDIT FOR TIME PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR THE DIFFERENT OFFENSE?

Moore v. State, 859 So.2d 613, 618-19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant matter concerns two separate criminal actions, each involving two counts, prosecuted against the petitioner, Geanetta Moore. In case number 99-2202, Moore was charged with grand theft and felony failure to appear. In case number 99-4516 she was also charged with grand theft and felony failure to appear. Moore pled no contest to all four counts in the two actions. A single criminal punishment code (hereinafter “CPC”) scoresheet that included all four counts was prepared. The felony failure to appear in case number 99-2202 was used as the primary offense, with the remaining three offenses considered as “additional offenses.” Moore’s total sentencing points were 46.8, and the scoresheet established that the lowest permissible prison sentence was 11.1 months. Moore was sentenced to a “split” sentence. With respect to case number 99-2202, she was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. For the two counts in case number 99-4516, Moore received concurrent terms of five years’ probation for each count, to run consecutively to the prison sentence in case number 99-2202. Moore completed her prison sentence for case number 99-2202, and began her probation. See Moore, 859 So.2d at 614.

Subsequently, on September 6, 2002, an affidavit was filed asserting that Moore had violated her probation in case number 99-4516. At a hearing held on January 16, 2003, Moore admitted that she had violated her probation. For both counts in case number 99-4516, the judge sentenced Moore to thirty-six months in state prison, with the sentences to run concurrently. Moore’s attorney objected to the sentence, arguing that Moore was entitled to credit for the time she had served in case number 99-2202. The judge refused to grant Moore credit for the time she served in the separate case.

On January 27, 2003, Moore filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1), asserting that the judge erred in not granting her credit for the time served in case number 99-2202. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the authority relied upon by Moore, namely Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), and its progeny, were not applicable because Moore was sentenced pursuant to the CPC, not the sentencing guidelines. The court noted that the rationale behind Tripp was to “prevent a Defendant from being sentenced in excess of the sentencing guidelines range on a [violation of probation].” A sentence pursuant to the CPC, however, is limited by only the statutory maximum. Because Tripp was not applicable to sentences under the CPC, the court held Moore was not entitled to relief.

On appeal, the First District examined this Court’s decision in Tripp, and outlined the subsequent decisions from this Court applying and extending Tripp, including Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994); Hodgdon v. State, 789 So.2d 958 (Fla.2001); and State v. Witherspoon, 810 So.2d 871 (Fla.2002). The district court affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief, holding that Tripp and its progeny did not constitute binding precedent, as they involved sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, while Moore was sentenced under the CPC. See Moore, 859 So.2d at 617. The court noted that, as had occurred in Tripp, only a single scoresheet was utilized in Moore’s initial sentencing; however, the significant differences between the sentencing guidelines and the CPC resulted in Tripp being inapplicable. See id. at 618. The court reasoned:

[Moore’s] sentences cannot be considered an interrelated unit. Thus, when probation on one offense is ordered to run consecutively to incarceration on another, there is simply no logical reason to award credit for the prison time previously served for the first offense against a newly imposed prison sentence on the second offense following a revocation of probation. To do so would provide a windfall to the defendant, in contravention of the Code’s relatively clearly expressed intent. Accordingly, we hold that appellant was not entitled to credit against her sentences in case number 99-4516 for the time she had previously served in prison on the sentences imposed in case number 99-2202.

Id. Although the district court affirmed Moore’s sentence, it also certified to this Court a question of great public importance.

TRIPP AND ITS PROGENY

Unquestionably, had the petitioner been sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines she would have been entitled to credit for the prison time she served in case number 99-2202 upon sentencing in case number 99^1516 after the violation of probation related to such charges. See Tripp, 622 So.2d at 942. However, the trial court declined to grant her credit for the time served in the first case because Moore was sentenced not under the sentencing guidelines but rather pursuant to the CPC. We must now decide whether our decision in Tripp, and the several subsequent decisions that have clarified and extended Tripp, become applicable to those sentenced pursuant to the criminal punishment code. As this is a pure question of law, the standard of review is de novo. See Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light, Co., 863 So.2d 1204, 1205 n. 1 (Fla.2003); Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000). Based upon the analysis below, we answer the certified question in the negative, agree with the district court of appeal below, and hold that Tripp and its progeny do not apply to CPC sentences.

In Tripp, this Court answered, in the negative, the following certified question: “If a trial court imposes a term of probation on one offense consecutive to a sentence of incarceration on another offense, can jail credit from the first offense be denied on a sentence imposed after a revocation of probation on the second offense?” Tripp, 622 So.2d at 941. In Tripp, the defendant pled guilty to two felony charges, burglary and grand theft. See id. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on the burglary charge, and four years’ probation, to be served consecutive to the prison sentence, on the grand theft charge. See id. After serving his prison time, Tripp was released on probation. Shortly thereafter, he violated his probation. See id. The judge then sentenced him to four and one-half years’ imprisonment on the grand theft charge, but gave him four years’ credit for the time previously served on the burglary charge. See id. The district court reversed Tripp’s sentence, and held that he was not entitled to credit for time served on the burglary charge. See id.

On review, we agreed with the sentence imposed by the trial court. Initially, we noted the purpose of the sentencing guidelines:

The purpose of the sentencing guidelines is “to establish a uniform set of standards to guide the sentencing judge in the sentence decision-making process” so as to eliminate unwarranted variation in sentencing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(b). One guidelines scoresheet must be utilized for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(1). A sentence must be imposed for each separate offense, but the total sentence cannot exceed the permitted range of the applicable guidelines scoresheet unless a written reason is given. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12). Sentences imposed after revocation of probation must be within the recommended guidelines range and a one-cell bump. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14).

Id. at 942. The focus of our decision was clearly upon ensuring that the intent and purpose behind the sentencing guidelines not be violated. We noted that when Tripp was originally sentenced, the trial court used one scoresheet, and the maximum jail time Tripp could have received for the two counts was four and one-half years. See id. Upon a violation of probation, the maximum sentence would have been five and one-half years. See id. However, without credit for time served, Tripp’s total sentence after the violation of probation would have been eight and one-half years’ incarceration (four years for the original burglary charge and four and one-half years for the grand theft charge after the violation of probation), three years more than was permitted by the original guidelines sentence. See id.

There, we held that a failure to grant credit for time served on the original sentence of imprisonment would allow trial judges to “easily circumvent the guidelines.” Id. The fact that “both offenses were factors that were weighed in the original sentencing through the use of a single scoresheet” could not be ignored and, therefore, the two counts had to continue to be treated together after a violation of probation on a second, separate count. Id. We noted: “We hold that if a trial court imposes a term of probation on one offense consecutive to a sentence of incarceration on another offense, credit for time served on the first offense must be awarded on the sentence imposed after revocation of probation on the second offense.” Id.

One year after Tripp was decided, this Court again addressed the relevant issue in Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994). Cook involved a more complicated factual situation, which varied somewhat from that presented in Tripp. In Cook, the defendant was initially convicted of several offenses in 1989. He was placed on probation for those offenses. See id. at 436. In 1990, he was convicted of several new offenses, and admitted that he had violated his probation for the 1989 offenses. See id. He was sentenced to four and one-half years’ incarceration for the new 1990 offenses, and was again placed on probation for the 1989 offenses, to be served consecutive to his prison sentence for the 1990 offenses. See id. After serving his prison sentence for the 1990 offenses, the defendant was released and began serving his probation for the 1989 offenses. See id. In 1991, Cook once again violated his probation for the 1989 offenses. The trial court sentenced him to three and one-half years’ imprisonment for the 1989 crimes, and refused to grant credit for time served on the 1990 offenses. See id. at 437. As this Court had not yet rendered its decision in Tripp, the district court affirmed Cook’s sentence. Following the decision in Tripp, however, this Court quashed the district court’s decision in Cook, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Tripp. See id.

On remand, the district court again affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, and noted that “[t]o allow Cook 4.5 years credit, for time served on the 1990 offenses, on the concurrent 3.5 year sentences imposed for the 1989 offenses after he twice violated his probation for those offenses, would result in no sanction for the second violation of probation. Surely the sentencing guidelines do not intend such a result.” Id. (quoting Cook v. State, 635 So.2d 70, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). The district court concluded that Tripp was not intended to apply in every situation in which probation for a second, separate offense was imposed consecutive to a sentence of imprisonment for another offense. See id.

We quashed the decision of the district court, and held that pursuant to Tripp, Cook should have been granted credit for the four and one-half years’ imprisonment he served for the 1990 offenses when he was resentenced for the 1989 offenses following his violation of probation on those offenses. See id. at 438. The state argued that Cook’s case differed from Tripp because his 1990 sentence of four and one-half years’ imprisonment-for the 1990 offenses to be followed by three years’ probation for the 1989 offenses was a “resentencing” for the 1989 offenses. See id. at 437-88. The state further argued that if Cook was granted four and one-half years’ credit for the time served on the 1990 offenses, he would serve no additional prison time for the second violation of probation, for which the judge imposed a three and one-half year sentence. See id. at 438 n. 5.

We were not persuaded by the state’s arguments at that time. Instead, we held that it was irrelevant that Cook had been “resentenced,” in 1990, to probation for the 1989 offenses after his first violation of probation. In 1990, one scoresheet was utilized when Cook was sentenced to prison for- the 1990 offenses to be followed by probation for the 1989 offenses and, therefore, Tripp was applicable. See id. at 438. Further, we noted that Cook had not received an “unwarranted windfall” because he would not serve any additional jail time for the 1989 offenses, as the state had asserted. We analyzed that the trial judge elected to sentence Cook to three and one-half years following the second violation of probation. However, pursuant to the sentencing guidelines range devised from the original scoresheet, the judge could have sentenced Cook to as many as seventeen years (a two-cell increase for the two violations of probation above the maximum established on the 1990 scoresheet). Therefore, if it was the judge’s intention that Cook would serve three and one-half years’ imprisonment for the two violations of probation of the 1989 offenses, he could have sentenced Cook to eight years’ imprisonment, applied the four and one-half years’ credit, and Cook would have faced three and one-half years’ imprisonment. See id. at 438 n. 5. It was only because the judge chose to sentence Cook to only three and one-half years instead of initiating a permitted higher sentence that ultimately Cook would not actually serve any additional time incarcerated. See id.

The next instance in which this Court was presented with circumstances to address a Tripp issue was in Hodgdon v. State, 789 So.2d 958 (Fla.2001). There, the defendant had been sentenced for numerous counts in 1989 to fifteen years in prison (fifteen years for one count, five for another; to be served concurrently) to be followed by twenty years’ probation for four separate charges (two ten-year concurrent probationary terms to be followed by two consecutive terms of five years each). See id. at 961. After serving his prison time, Hodgdon was released and subsequently violated his probation. See id. At sentencing following the violation of probation, Hodgdon argued that he was entitled to credit for the prison time served for each individual consecutive sentence of probation. See id. The trial court disagreed, and instead sentenced him to a total of forty years in prison (two fifteen-year sentences and two five-year sentences, all sentences to run consecutively). See id. at 962. The court credited the fifteen years Hodgdon had previously served against the entire forty-year sentence, rather than each individual sentence. See id. The district court affirmed the sentence. See id.

We approved Hodgdon’s sentence. Initially, we reviewed our decision in Tripp and explained: “At the root of our decision [in Tripp ] was a desire to effectuate the intent underlying the sentencing guidelines.” Id. at 959. We also noted that, in contrast to Tripp, Hodgdon did not involve a sentence that exceeded that which was permitted under the sentencing guidelines. See id. at 962. That fact alone, however, did not preclude application of Tripp. See id. In Tripp, the defendant had violated only one term of probation, while the defendant in Hodgdon had violated four. We concluded that Tripp stands for the proposition that the original sentences must be treated as an interrelated unit. See id. at 963. Therefore, we announced: “[W]e clarify our holding in Tripp to emphasize that a defendant who violates probation on multiple counts imposed consecutive to a prison term is entitled to credit for the time served on the prison term as to the entire sentence imposed on the probation violation, not against each individual count on which probation was violated.” Id. Importantly, we further provided that “[T]his Court’s holding in Tripp was intended to prevent the circumvention of the guidelines by treating sentences computed on one scoresheet as an interrelated unit. Tripp was never intended to provide a sentencing boon or windfall to defendants upon violations of probation.” Id.

The final decision from this Court in the Tripp progeny was State v. Witherspoon, 810 So.2d 871 (Fla.2002). There, we answered the following certified question from the Fifth District:

When a defendant is originally sentenced consecutively on a single score-sheet, does the holding in Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), require the granting of credit for time served in prison where the defendant’s newly imposed sentence upon revocation of probation does not exceed the maximum permitted by the sentencing guidelines?

Id. at 872. We answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the certified question had been answered in Hodgdon. See id. at 873. We declared: “Consistent with Hodgdon, we hold that Tripp should be applied notwithstanding the fact that the newly imposed sentence is within the guidelines.” Id.

THOMAS V. STATE

The First District in the instant action not only certified a question for this Court’s consideration and resolution, it also noted apparent conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thomas v. State, 805 So.2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). See Moore, 859 So.2d at 617. In Thomas, the defendant pled guilty to one count of driving with a suspended license in case number 99-17486 and he also pled guilty to one count of driving with a suspended license in ease number 99-20953. See Thomas, 805 So.2d at 851. Thomas was sentenced pursuant to the CPC rather than under the sentencing guidelines. See id. In case number 99-17486 he received a sentence of eighteen months’ community control to be followed by eighteen months’ probation. He was also sentenced to serve weekends in jail as a condition of his community control. See id. In case number 99-20953 he received the identical sentence, except he was not ordered to serve weekends in jail for that conviction. See id. Subsequently, Thomas violated his probation. After the violation he was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighteen months in prison. Credit for the weekend jail time served in case number 99-17486 was applied only to the prison sentence imposed, after the violation, in case number 99-17486. See id.

On appeal, Thomas argued that pursuant to Tripp he was entitled to credit for the weekend jail time in both cases. The trial court had apparently declined to apply the Tripp proposition because the probation ordered in case number 99-20953 was concurrent with, and not consecutive to, the probation, ordered in case number 99-17486. See id. The Second District disagreed. The court opined: “We believe the application of Tripp is triggered not by whether a consecutive period of probation is ordered, but by the fact of offenses being scored on the same scoresheet and, thus, factored into the computation of a permissible sentence imposed at the same sentencing proceeding.” Id.

The Thomas court did not explicitly address the specific issue currently before us, namely whether Tripp and its progeny are applicable to CPC sentences. However, the Second District did implicitly acknowledge the difference between the CPC and the sentencing guidelines by recognizing: “We observe that the legislative broadening of permissible guidelines sentencing ranges has virtually eliminated the circumvention of the guidelines problem with which Tripp was concerned. Nevertheless, because Tripp appears to require that credit be granted on both cases, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award the additional credit.” Id. at 851-52. As the Second District did apply the Tripp requirements to Thomas’ CPC sentences, it is in apparent conflict with the instant decision in Moore, in which the First District expressly held that the Tripp principles were not applicable to CPC sentences.

ANALYSIS

When the Legislature adopted the criminal punishment code in 1998, it substantially altered sentencing 'in Florida. As we recently discussed:

In Jones v. State, 813 So.2d 22 (Fla.2002), we recognized that the establishment of the Criminal Punishment Code in 1998 made substantial changes relating to the sentencing guidelines. See id. at 25. Under the former sentencing .guidelines, a narrow range of permissible sentences was determined through a strict mathematical formula. See § 921.0014(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). It was then within the judge’s discretion to sentence the defendant within that narrow range. In contrast, under the now-applicable CPC, “[t]he permissible range for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence [as determined by the number of total sentencing points] up to and including the statutory maximum.” § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). Conceptually, the CPC and the former sentencing guidelines are not synonymous,

Nettles v. State, 850 So.2d 487, 492-93 (Fla.2003). Therefore, because a CPC sentence is conceptually different than a guidelines sentence, not all rules that were applicable to guidelines sentencing are applicable to CPC sentencing. The rule established in Tripp is such an example.

We have recognized that our decision in Tripp was grounded upon “a desire to effectuate the intent underlying the sentencing guidelines.” Hodgdon, 789 So.2d at 959. In Tripp, we noted that if a defendant was not granted credit for time served, the guidelines could be “easily circumvented].” Tripp, 622 So.2d at 942. As we explained in Tripp, under the guidelines, while individual sentences were required to be imposed for each separate offense, the offenses were interrelated because a single total sentencing guidelines range was to -be established on a single scoresheet. See id. at 942. If a defendant subsequently violated probation, the judge was restricted to sentencing that defendant within a one-cell increase above the original guidelines range. See id. These restrictions were eliminated by the CPC.

Under the CPC, “[t]he trial court judge may impose a sentence up to and including the statutory maximum for any offense, including an offense that is before the court due to a violation of probation or community control.” § 921.002(l)(g), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis added). The Legislature expressed that the primary purpose of sentencing is to be punishment. See § 921.002(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). As with the sentencing guidelines, a single score-sheet for all offenses is used for CPC sentencing. However, a single sentencing range is not established under the CPC as occurred under the prior guidelines. “The permissible range for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including the statutory maximum ... for the primary offense and any additional offenses before the court for sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or consecutively.” § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999).

Under the prior guidelines, the individual offenses were considered interrelated because together they were used to establish the minimum and maximum sentence that could be imposed. To the contrary, however, under the CPC, together the individual offenses only establish the minimum sentence that may be imposed; a single maximum sentence is not established — each individual offense has its own maximum sentence, namely the statutory maximum for that offense. Under the CPC, multiple offenses are not interrelated as they were previously under the guidelines.

In Tripp and its progeny, we addressed concerns unique to the sentencing guidelines. We highlighted in Tripp that with the circumstances presented there, both offenses were factors considered in the original sentence. See Tripp, 622 So.2d at 942. Additionally, unlike application of CPC sentencing, the offenses were factors that were jointly considered to establish a sentencing range. Offenses were required to be addressed as interrelated until all sentences and probationary terms were satisfied because the offenses together created the initial sentencing range — -the minimum and maximum permissible sentence. While one scoresheet may still be utilized in CPC sentencing, a sentencing range is not established under the CPC; only a minimum permissible sentence is determined. The maximum sentence for each offense is determined solely by the statutory maximum for the individual offenses.

The concerns previously relevant to the Court’s analysis in deciding Tripp and its progeny are no longer present in CPC sentencing. The Legislature has now specifically provided that a defendant may be sentenced up to the statutory maximum for any offense, including an offense after a violation of probation; a trial judge is no longer limited by an established guidelines maximum and a one-cell bump. Therefore, because the concerns related to guidelines sentencing are no longer present in CPC sentencing, and the courts are no longer specifically limited to a sentencing range under the CPC, there is no justification for continuing to treat separate offenses as an interrelated unit after the minimum sentence is established. The certified question is therefore answered in the negative — defendants who violate a consecutive term of probation are not entitled to credit for prison time served on a separate offense. The First District’s thoughtful, articulate, and well-reasoned decision in Moore is thus approved, and, to the extent it is in conflict, the Second District’s decision in Thomas disapproved.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, C.J., concurring with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

PARIENTE, C.J.,

concurring.

I concur fully in the majority opinion, and write separately to distinguish the Court’s decision today from State v. Witherspoon, 810 So.2d 871 (Fla.2002).

In Witherspoon, this Court held that credit for time served under Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), should be granted even when the overall sentence would not'otherwise exceed the guidelines maximum. See 810 So.2d at 873. In this case, the Court holds that Tripp credit need not be granted upon revocation of probation in a Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) sentence because under the CPC, there is no ceiling on the overall sanction, as there was under the guidelines. At first glance, these results might seem inconsistent. How can the Court require Tripp credit in a case in which the denial of credit would not cause the sentence to exceed the guidelines ceiling, but decline to require the credit under a regime in which the ceiling has been abandoned?

The different results flow from the fact that under the CPC, unlike the guidelines, sentences for different offenses need not be imposed as a unit. We recognized in Tripp that the guidelines were designed to establish uniform standards that would eliminate unwarranted sentence variation by limiting the trial court’s discretion to impose sentences outside presumptive sentencing ranges. See 622 So.2d at 942. As the First District stated in this case, the CPC “was intended to return to trial judges most of the discretion regarding sentencing that they had traditionally enjoyed prior to the adoption of the sentencing guidelines.” Moore v. State, 859 So.2d 613, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In contrast to the guidelines, the CPC has no ceiling other than the statutory maximum punishment, authorizes any sentence that may originally have been imposed as a penalty for violation of community control or probation, and permits a consecutive sentence for each offense. We have upheld this sentencing scheme against constitutional challenge. See Hall v. State, 823 So.2d 757 (Fla.2002).

Accordingly, different offenses pending for sentencing at the same time need no longer be considered as an interrelated unit for any purpose other than establishing the minimum sentence. Because the unitary sentencing policy of the guidelines that led to our decision in Witherspoon is largely absent from the CPC, I agree that the trial court may forego Tripp credit upon revocation of community control or probation in a sentence imposed under the Criminal Punishment Code.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

      . A CPC scoresheet was prepared after the violation of probation in case number 99-4516. It utilized the felony failure to appear charge as the primary offense, and the grand theft count was included as an additional offense. The total sentencing points were 46.9, and the lowest permissible sentence was 14.175 months. The scoresheet also noted that the statutory maximum was ten years.

      . Had the court followed Hodgdon's argument and applied credit for the fifteen years' imprisonment to each of the four probationary terms individually, Hodgdon would not have been required to serve any additional time incarcerated following his violation of probation.


text:
    R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Florence KENYON, etc., Respondent.
    No. SC03-1577.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 2, 2004.

      E.C. Deeno Kitchen and James P. Jud-kins of Kitchen, Judkins, Simpson and High, Tallahassee, FL; Sylvia H. Walbolt of Carlton Fields, St. Petersburg, FL; Benjamin H. Hill, III of Hill, Ward and Henderson, P.A., Tampa, FL; and Stephanie E. Parker of Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner.
    Howard M. Acosta, St. Petersburg, FL; Kent G. Whittemore and Bruce H. Denson of Whittemore Denson, P.A., St. Peters-burg, FL; and Charles P. Schropp of Schropp, Buell and Elligett, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“R. J. Reynolds”), filed a petition seeking to invoke our “all writs” jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const. Although R.J. Reynolds frames its argument as a request for clarification of our recent amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a), the petition essentially seeks review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s order denying R.J. Reynolds’ motion for a written opinion. We dismiss the petition because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court of appeal’s order. We write in this case to clarify that our recent amendment to rule 9.330(a) does not alter the jurisdictional restrictions that prevent this Court from reviewing a district court of appeal’s decision issued without an opinion or an explanation that would give this Court jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; Grate v. State, 750 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla.1999). Additionally, we hold that henceforth this Court will dismiss all extraordinary writ petitions, regardless of how they are designated, requesting that this Court review a district court’s denial of a request for a written opinion made pursuant to rule 9.330(a), where the denial does not include any elaboration, citation, or explanation that would give this Court jurisdiction.

FACTS

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling of the trial court in an opinion that read “PER CURIAM. Affirmed.” See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 856 So.2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (table). Following the affirmance, R.J. Reynolds moved the Second District for rehearing, rehearing en banc, certification, and for issuance of a written opinion pursuant to rule 9.330(a).. The Second District denied all of R.J. Reynolds’ motions, including its motion for a written opinion, in an order that simply read, “[R. J. Reynolds’] motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, certification and issuance of a written opinion is hereby denied.” R.J. Reynolds then petitioned this Court, seeking to invoke our “all writs” jurisdiction.

In the petition, R.J. Reynolds asks this Court to clarify the. standards to be used by the district courts in ruling on a request for a written opinion made pursuant to the recent amendment to rule 9.330(a). See Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla.2002). R.J. Reynolds argues that giving it “the ‘right’ to request a written opinion when it has objectively identified several legitimate bases for Supreme Court review — but then allowing the district court to summarily deny this request and preclude further review of its decision — effectively renders the amendment to rule 9.330(a) a nullity.”

R.J. Reynolds also asks this Court to direct the Second District Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision not to issue an opinion in light of any such clarification. However, most of the petition is devoted to argument on the underlying merits of its case. For example, R.J. Reynolds argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion requesting a written opinion and then argues why a written opinion is necessary so that this Court can reach the underlying issues involved in the case.

ANALYSIS

We begin our analysis with a discussion of the recent amendment to rule 9.330(a) relied on by R.J. Reynolds in its petition. In response to a report submitted by the Court’s appointed Judicial Management Council Committee on Per Curiam Affirmances, we amended rule 9.330(a) “to allow a litigant to request, as part of a motion for rehearing, that a district court of appeal issue an opinion in a case where that court has issued a decision without opinion.” Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So.2d at 889. Nothing in the amendment to rule 9.380(a) mandates that a district court of appeal issue a written opinion upon request of a party. In fact, by leaving the final decision on whether to issue a written opinion to the district court of appeal, the amendment preserves the inherent discretion of that court to issue a written opinion when, in its reasoned judgment, a written opinion is required. Thus, the amendment does not alter this Court’s previous conclusion that it lacks the authority to require a district court to write an opinion when the district court has determined that no opinion is necessary. See Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Co. v. District Ct. of Appeal, 467 So.2d 985, 986 (Fla.1985) (stating that the Court could “find no authority for this Court to require a written opinion” and denying petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the district court to write an opinion replacing its prior decision).

We have held on a number of occasions that it is improper for a party to seek to circumvent the restrictions on this Court’s jurisdiction by filing a petition for extraordinary relief. See generally Persaud v. State, 838 So.2d 529, 533 (Fla.2003) (holding that extraordinary writ jurisdiction may not be used to seek review of per curiam decisions of district courts of appeal that contain only citations to valid statutory provisions or to opinions that are not pending before Supreme Court, have not been reversed, and do not note a contrary holding); Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So.2d 974, 978 (Fla.2002) (holding that Court does not have discretionary review jurisdiction or extraordinary writ jurisdiction to review unelaborated per curiam denials of relief, regardless of whether the denials are in opinion form or by way of unpublished order); Grate, 750 So.2d at 626 (holding that the provisions of the Florida Constitution governing this Court’s jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs may not be used to seek review of an appellate court decision issued without a written opinion); St. Paul Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1304-05 (Fla.1980) (holding that the Court’s power to issue “all writs” cannot be used to circumvent the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal rendered without opinion when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict). In the instant case, R.J. Reynolds frames its petition as seeking to invoke this Court’s “all writs” jurisdiction. Despite this label, the petition is an attempt to obtain this Court’s review of the unelaborated order denying the rule 9.330(a) motion and an attempt to have this Court compel the district court to write an opinion. Because the order denying the motion does not contain any citation, explanation, or elaboration, we have no jurisdiction to review the order. See Stallworth, 827 So.2d at 978. In Stallworth, this Court held that “this Court does not have .discretionary review jurisdiction or extraordinary writ jurisdiction to review per curiam denials of relief, issued without opinion or explanation, whether they be in opinion form or by way of unpublished order.” Id. at 978.

In this case, there is no basis for the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to review the per curiam affirmance in the appeal or the unelaborated denial of the motion for a written opinion. Therefore, R.J. Reynolds’ petition seeking to invoke the Court’s “all writs” jurisdiction is improper. See Grate, 750 So.2d at 626.

In conclusion, if this Court were to exercise jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial order for “an abuse of discretion” as R.J. Reynolds argues, the Court’s jurisdictional restrictions would be circumvented because the Court would essentially be required to review the district court’s initial per curiam affirmance in order to determine whether the denial of the motion was proper. Even though rule 9.330(a) has been expressly amended to allow a party to request a written opinion from a district court, that rule did not create an automatic right for a party to obtain a written opinion when requested.

Accordingly, we dismiss R.J. Reynolds’ petition on the grounds that we lack jurisdiction. We reiterate that in the future we will dismiss all extraordinary writ petitions, regardless of how they are designated, in which the petition requests that this Court review a district court’s denial of a request for a written opinion made pursuant to rule 9.330(a) and the denial does not include any elaboration, citation, or explanation that would give this Court jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., with WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

      . Because we lack jurisdiction, we have not considered the-merits of R.J. Reynolds’ underlying arguments.

      . The relevant portion of the amended rule reads, "When a decision is entered without opinion, and a party believes that a written opinion would provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review, the motion may include a request that the court issue a written opinion." Fla. R.App. P. 9.330(a). The rule goes on to state that “[i]f such a request is made by an attorney,” it shall be accompanied by a signed statement by the attorney attesting to the fáct that, in his or her "reasoned and studied professional judgment ... a written opinion will provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review" and explaining “with specificity why the supreme court would be likely to grant review if an opinion were written.” Id.

      . No motions for rehearing or clarification will be entertained in this case or in cases which are dismissed in the future based on the reasoning set forth in this opinion. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.330(d).


author: PER CURIAM. PARIENTE, C.J.,

text:
    N.C., a child, Petitioner, v. Perry ANDERSON, etc., Respondent.
    No. SC03-523.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 2, 2004.

      Alan H. Scbreiber, Public Defender and Debra A. Bookout, Assistant Public Defender, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Donna M. Hoffmann, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in N.C. v. Anderson, 837 So.2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which certified conflict with the decisions in A.L. v. State, 790 ,So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); S.D.W. v. State, 746 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.A. v. State, 685 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and L.M. v. State, 610 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Fourth District’s decision in N.C. that while a juvenile is entitled to a written order of disposition containing all of the terms of disposition,' there is no entitlement to an oral pronouncement containing all of the terms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As a result of a misdemeanor battery adjudication, N.C. violated her probation and went before the juvenile court for disposition. N.C., 837 So.2d at 426. At the disposition hearing, the court orally committed N.C. to a level six residential treatment program. In addition, although not stated orally at the hearing, the court’s written disposition order issued on the same day required that N.C. be placed upon conditional release following her completion of the treatment program. See id. Subsequently, N.C.’s attorney filed a motion to correct the disposition on the grounds that her adjudication did not qualify for level six treatment. See id. The trial court granted the motion and entered a new disposition order imposing level four treatment. See id. The new order also required post-commitment conditional release/aftercare. See id.

When N.C. completed the commitment program, she filed a motion to terminate aftercare on the ground that it was not legally binding because the trial court had not orally pronounced the inclusion of aftercare or conditional release at the original disposition hearing. See 837 So.2d at 426-27. N.C. relied on the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in L.S. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 779 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), and argued that a written disposition order could only include terms orally pronounced at the disposition hearing. See N.C., 837 So.2d at 427. The trial court denied the motion to terminate.

On review of the denial of the motion to terminate, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s denial and distinguished N.C. from L.S. on the grounds that in L.S., aftercare had not been provided for in either a written disposition or an oral pronouncement. See id The Fourth District concluded that N.C. was not entitled to an oral pronouncement of disposition under the provisions of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(c), and the court held that the written disposition provided for in the juvenile rules was sufficient to comply with constitutional due process concerns.

In addition, the court concluded that N.C.’s due process rights to be fully informed of the terms of disposition in time to object were adequately protected by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), which provides that a juvenile may file a motion to correct an illegal or erroneous disposition or commitment order. See id. The district court also observed that N.C. had not satisfied the time provisions under rule 8.135 for objecting, so even if the inconsistency in the oral pronouncement and the written order did constitute error remediable under rule 8.135, she would have been precluded from relief on procedural grounds. See id. The district court denied N.C.’s motion for rehearing, but proceeded to certify conflict with several decisions from the other district courts involving similar or related issues. See id. at 428.

ANALYSIS

N.C. raises two issues for this Court’s consideration: (1) whether constitutional due process concerns require that an oral pronouncement of disposition be issued at the disposition hearing, and (2) whether Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135, which provides for a motion to correct an illegal or erroneous disposition, provides adequate due process protection. We conclude that due process does not require that the trial court issue an oral pronouncement of disposition at a minor’s disposition hearing, and that rule 8.135 provides an adequate safeguard for minors who wish to challenge their written dispositions.

Oral Pronouncement of Sentence,

At the outset, N.C. contends that, in juvenile delinquency cases the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process of law require that trial courts issue oral pronouncements of dispositions that include all of the terms of disposition. N.C. acknowledges that the juvenile rules provide only for a written disposition order. However, she contends that juveniles should be afforded the same right' to an oral pronouncement that adults enjoy. See Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla.1996) (acknowledging that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(b) “mandates that the sentence or other final disposition ‘shall be pronounced in open court.’ ”)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” This same protection is provided in the Florida Constitution. See Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. “Procedural due process serves as a vehicle to. ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue.” Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991). Procedural due process requires both reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See id. The notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The notice must be of such- nature .as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70. S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (citations omitted).

At issue in this case is whether N.C. received procedural due process, that is, whether the proper procedures contained in the juvenile rules, which do not include a. requirement of an oral pronouncement, are sufficient to satisfy due process concerns. Although a minor has a due process right to some form of notice of disposition, we conclude that minors have no constitutional right to an oral pronouncement of disposition, where there is an adequate procedure in place for the issuance of written dispositions and for objections to those dispositions.

Wé acknowledge that in adult sentencing proceedings, oral pronouncement of sentence is required. However, the applicable rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700, expressly mandates oral pronouncement. While this might reflect a discrepancy between the juvenile courts and the adult courts, we believe it is explained by the unique nature of the juvenile courts, which are neither entirely civil nor criminal, and by the unique nature of the status of juveniles themselves.

Such a conclusion is consistent with the analysis by the U.S. Supreme Court’s statement in Scholl v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984):

There is no doubt that the Due Process Clause is applicable in juvenile proceedings. “The problem,” we have stressed, “is to ascertain the precise impact of the due process requirement upon such proceedings.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13-14, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). We have held that certain basic constitutional protections enjoyed by adults accused of crimes also apply to juveniles. See id., at 31-57, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (notice of charges, right to counsel, privilege against self-incrimination, right to confrontation and cross-examination); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (double jeopardy). But the Constitution does not mandate elimination of all differences in the treatment of juveniles. See, e.g., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (no right to jury trial). The State has “a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child,” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), which makes a juvenile proceeding fundamentally different from an adult criminal trial. We have tried, therefore, to strike a balance — to respect the “informality” and “flexibility” that characterize juvenile proceedings, In re Winship, supra, at 366, 90 S.Ct. 1068, and yet to ensure that such proceedings comport with the “fundamental fairness” demanded by the Due Process Clause. Breed v. Jones, supra, at 531, 95 S.Ct. 1779; McKeiver, supra, at 543, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (plurality opinion).

Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 263, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984). The informality and flexibility that the U.S. Supreme Court refers to support our conclusion that oral pronouncements of disposition are not mandatory so long as adequate provisions are made for both notice of the juvenile sanctions and a meaningful opportunity to object. It appears that each state is well within its rights to determine just how a minor should receive notice of a disposition, be it oral, written, or both, so long as due process concerns are adequately addressed.

In Florida, the rule that governs disposition hearings, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115, requires that the trial court issue a written disposition. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(c) provides:

(c) Disposition Order. The disposition order shall be prepared and distributed by the clerk of the court. Copies shall be provided to the child, defense attorney, state attorney, and department representative. Each case requires a separate disposition order. The order shall:
(1) state the name and age of the child;
(2) state the disposition of each count, specifying the charge title, degree of offense, and maximum penalty defined by statute;
(3) state general and specific conditions or sanctions;
(4) make all findings of fact required by law;
(5) state the date and time when issued and the county and court where issued; and
(6) be signed by the court with the title of office.

In N.C.’s case, a copy of the written disposition was provided to N.C. and the other relevant parties. This disposition and its contents provided sufficient notice of the court’s findings and the court’s action. Furthermore, N.C. was provided an opportunity to challenge the disposition order under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135. Therefore, we conclude that due process was adequately satisfied through the issuance of a written disposition subject to a subsequent challenge in the same court.

Rule 8.135

Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135, entitled “Correction or Disposition or Commitment Orders,” provides for the correction of an illegal or erroneous disposition. N.C. contends that rule 8.135 does not provide adequate due process protection.

In addition to the provision for a written disposition order, we conclude this opportunity to object to any provision of a disposition order is sufficient to satisfy due process concerns. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115. The rule sets out guidelines. and time frames for the assertion and resolution of claims of illegal or erroneous dispositions. The rule states that unless the issues raised in the motion can be resolved as a matter of law without a hearing, the court shall provide proper notice to all parties and hold an initial hearing no later than ten days from the filing to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is needed; the rule then provides that if an evidentiary hearing is needed, it shall be set no more than ten days from the date of the initial hearing. In this case, N.C. has not demonstrated that the procedures set forth in rule 8.135 were inadequate or deprived her of a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard. Therefore, we conclude that rule 8.135 provides sufficient due process protections.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that due process does not require that a trial court issue an oral pronouncement of disposition and that N.C.’s due process rights were adequately protected by the requirement in the juvenile rules of a written disposition subject to a subsequent challenge by motion in the trial court.

We therefore approve the outcome of the Fourth District’s decision in N.C., and disapprove the certified conflict decisions: A.L., S.D.W., C.A., T.A.R. and L.M., to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., with WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, C.J.,

concurring.

I agree with the majority’s holding that a juvenile is not entitled to an oral pronouncement of all the terms of a disposition. I write to point out that the facts in this case indicate a problem that is outside the scope of the discrete appellate issue before us, but which nevertheless deserves attention — the lack of adequate gender-specific programs and services for juvenile delinquent girls.

The transcript of the first hearing in this case reveals that the trial court originally placed N.C. in a Level 6 commitment program only because the available Level 4 program would not have addressed N.C.’s multiple needs, which included treatment for sexual abuse and depression. When asked by the trial court whether all available options had been explored and whether anything was available other than a Level 6 program, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) representative explained that probation was not appropriate because of N.C.’s depression and negative behavior at home. N.C.’s grandmother echoed the DJJ representative’s assessment that N.C. needed more help than she could receive at home. Although N.C.’s counsel argued that N.C. did not meet the minimal criteria for commitment and that N.C.’s “mental health needs [did not] translate into criminality to the level of a commitment program,” the trial court reluctantly committed her to a Level 6 commitment program.

Six months later, N.C., who was one month from completion of the Level 6 program, filed (through her attorney) a motion to correct disposition in the trial court. N.C. argued that the Level 6 commitment was unauthorized because her sole delinquent act was a misdemeanor battery. The State’s response was that N.C. was getting “the service she needs at this Level 6 for her mental health condition.” However, the State agreed that N.C. did not, in fact, meet the criteria for Level 6 placement. The DJJ representative explained that N.C. would not get the necessary services within a Level 4 program, that she was “doing perfectly fine” in the Level 6 program, and was “getting the help that she needs.” The trial judge was clearly frustrated, acknowledging that although the higher level commitment was in N.C.’s best interests, he lacked the authority to keep her in the Level 6 program. The trial judge stated: “I have to do what I have to do. I mean regardless of the fact that it’s helping her.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In a recent study on the juvenile justice system in Florida, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) concluded that there is “no effective system that matches the control and supervision needs of the youth with the residential programs that are funded.” Barry Krisberg & Vanessa Patino, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Juvenile Justice in Florida. What Kind of Future? 3 (2004). According to the report’s authors, more youth are being placed into, commitment programs at a time when the overall juvenile crime rates have been declining and that “many of these youth can be better served by intensive home-based services, and shorter institutional stays, followed by very high quality reentry services.” Id. at 8.

The NCCD report echoes what DJJ’s own statistics show — that “crime by young women increased by 30% statéwide” between 1993 and 1998. Id. at 40. There is also evidence that girls are more likely to be detained for less serious offenses, See id. (specifically finding that “girls in Duval County were increasingly likely to be detained for minor nonviolent offenses”); see also American Bar Association & National Bar Association, Justice by Gender: The Lack of Appropriate Prevention, Diversion and Treatment Alternatives for Girls in the Justice System 17 (2001) (noting that there “is evidence that girls are being detained for less serious offenses than boys”). Significantly, the NCCD report reflects that there are many successful programs to “combat risk factors and halt the surge of girls entering the juvenile justice system,” id., but cautions that although the state is “blessed with the most outstanding service providers for girls in the nation,” it is “imperative” to fully fund the blueprint. Id. at 42.

In this case, a young girl with a history of sexual abuse and depression acted out and committed a misdemeanor domestic battery. For reasons unexplained in the record, the services she needed were unavailable in a lower level program- or through intensive in-home • services, and the trial court was not authorized to place her in a higher level program. These facts demonstrate the .limitations on what the judicial branch has the legal authority to accomplish. Thus, it is imperative that all three branches of government cooperate to ensure that our juvenile justice system can fulfill its mandate of providing rehabilitation to those children who are most at risk and most in need.

ANSTEAD and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

      . In 2000, Florida's Legislature amended section 985.231 (l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes, and substituted the term "conditional release” for the term "aftercare.” See ch.2000-135, § 31, Laws of Fla.

      . The Fourth District certified conflict with: A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a written provision requiring that A.L. write a letter of apology to the victim be stricken from the written judgment because it was not included in the oral pronouncement); S.D.W. v. State, 746 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that disposition order be remanded to the trial court for revision to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement); C.A. v. State, 685 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that oral pronouncement prevailed over the written order); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222, 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding that "disposition order be vacated and the cause remanded for correction thereof”); and L.M. v. State, 610 So.2d 1314, 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (stating that written disposition and oral pronouncement must conform to one other).

      . Having reviewed the applicable rules of other states, we also have concluded that the trend appears to be toward written dispositions. The rules of a majority of states explicitly require a written disposition in either all or some circumstances, including sixteen states which, like Florida, require a written disposition in all circumstances. There are a number of states where the format in which the disposition should be rendered is ambiguous, and it is unclear whether oral pronouncements or written dispositions, or both, may be mandated in those jurisdictions.

      .In relevant part, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135 states:
      (a) Correction. A court at any time may correct an illegal disposition or commitment order imposed by it. However, a party may not file a motion to correct under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of a direct appeal.
      (b) Motion to Correct Disposition or Commitment Error. A motion to correct any disposition or commitment order error, including an illegal disposition or commitment, may be filed as allowed by this subdivision. The motion must identify the error with specificity and provide a proposed correction. A response to the motion may be filed within 15 days either admitting or contesting the alleged error. Motions may be filed by the state under this subdivision only if the correction of the error would benefit the child or to correct a scrivener's error. . . .

      . In fact, N.C. successfully availed herself of the protections of rule 8.135 when she challenged the initial Level 6 commitment she received in the first disposition order.

      . We do agree with petitioner that as a matter of policy the better practice would be for all of the terms of disposition to be announced and discussed at the disposition hearing.