Nevertheless, the trial court proceeded with the sentence as imposed. Thereafter, the State gave notice of appeal.On appeal, the State argues that, under State v. Murray , 161 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the trial court erred in sua sponte entering a downward departure sentence on Schultz's convictions. It argues that the trial court failed to articulate any basis for the departures and that no evidence was presented at the sentencing hearing to support a departure. The State further argues that the trial court failed to articulate in writing the basis for the downward departures pursuant to section 921.002(3), Florida Statutes ("Any sentence imposed below the lowest permissible sentence must be explained in writing by the trial court judge.").

Because the prosecutor timely objected to the imposition of a downward departure sentence at the same proceeding in which Wiley was sentenced and stated the legal grounds for the objection, the issue was properly preserved for appellate review as to the legal grounds asserted. See Harrell , 894 So.2d at 940 ; see also State v. Murray , 161 So.3d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). III.

Where the trial court fails to give written reasons or make oral findings for granting a downward departure sentence, the sentence is improper and must be reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. See State v. Murray, 161 So.3d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a downward departure sentence because the defendant did not move for downward departure and the trial court did not state it was departing, orally articulate reasons for doing so, nor enter a written order memorializing the reasons for departure); § 921.002(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2018); cf. Hobgood, 166 So.3d at 845 n.2 (noting the State failed to object to the trial court's oral pronouncement of a sentence below the lowest permissible sentence, thereby failing to preserve the error and precluding it from a successful appeal).

"In the absence of either written or oral findings, however, a downward departure sentence is improper." Carlson, 911 So. 2d at 236 ; cf. Schultz, 238 So. 3d at 290 ; State v. Murray, 161 So. 3d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Here, at sentencing, defense counsel asserted that a downward departure was warranted based on sentences received by other defendants charged with similar crimes and who had similar guidelines scores.

In the absence of providing a reason to the trial court for striking what the victim's mother said, we find no reversible error in the trial court's decision to deny the motion. See, e.g. , State v. Murray , 161 So. 3d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting that objections must be sufficiently precise to apprise the trial court of the grounds for the objection in order to be preserved for appeal). Furthermore, any error was harmless.