Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 187 So.2d 890 (Fla.1966); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So.2d 57 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
Although in Van Royal, unlike here, the record on appeal had already been transmitted to this Court before the trial court filed his written findings in support of the death penalty, this distinction is not significant. Florida Rule of Appellate Proce- dure 9.600(a) provides for the lower tribunal to have concurrent jurisdiction with the appellate court to render orders on any procedural matter relating to the cause prior to transmission of the record. However, proper imposition of a sentence of death must be deemed a substantive, rather than a procedural, matter. See Morgan v. State, 415 So.2d 6 (Fla.1982) and Vaught v. State, 410 So.2d 147 (Fla.1982).
Nor is the fact that the jury in Van Royal returned a life recommendation while the jury below returned a death recom- mendation for Jeff Muehleman determinative of this issue. Van Royal
did not depend upon the jury's advisory sentence for its holding. Furthermore, regardless of the jury's recommendation, the court is required to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
himself prior to imposing sentence in
The record does not
a capital case. reflect that the
§921.141(3), judge below
fulfilled this obligation.
Van Royal and Florida's capital sentencing scheme thus compel the conclusion that Jeff Muehleman's sentence of death must be vacated and this cause remanded for imposition of a life sentence.