JEFF MUEHLEMAN'S DEATH SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THAT THE COURT BELOW MADE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUM- STANCES PRIOR TO OFALLY IMPOSING THE DEATH SENTENCE, AND WRITTEN FINDINGS AS TO AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIR- CUMSTANCES WERE NOT FILED UNTIL AFTER THE COURT LOST JURISDICTION.
In the recent case of Van Roval v. State. 11 F.L.W. 490 (Fla. Sept. 18, 1986) this Court vacated the appellant's three death sentences where the lower court had orally pronounced sen- tence, but had not filed his written findings in support thereof until after the appeal had been initiated and the record on appeal sent to this Court. The instant case is comparable to Van Royal.
In Van Royal the trial court orally sentenced the appel- lant to death with the comment that he had never seen, or heard of, a more brutal crime. Similarly, in orally sentencing Jeff Muehleman to death, Judge Farnell offered a few brief remarks con- cerning the facts of the offense, but did not make specific con- temporaneous oral or written findings as to which aggravating and mitigating circumstances he found to exist, or how and why the aggravation outweighedthe mitigation so that the death penalty was appropriate.
Here, as in Van Royal, by the time the circuit court judge filed his written reasons for imposing a sentence of death,
he had lost jurisdiction.
Once Muehleman filed his notice of