This is a state appeal which contends solely that written reasons are required by the applicable statute. In accordance with Wiedeman v. State, 506 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), but directly contrary to State v. Nealy, 532 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) and State v. Green, 541 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we conclude that the state's position is correct. The state has seen fit both in its brief and at oral argument to emphasize the alleged heinousness of the crimes presently involved and the extent of Kepner's past record.
PER CURIAM. We review State v. Kepner, 560 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), because of certified conflict with State v. Green, 541 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and State v. Nealy, 532 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We have jurisdiction.
See the discussion in State v. Green, 541 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also State v. Diers, 532 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1988); State v. Nealy, 532 So.2d 1117 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
However, notwithstanding the modification permitting appeals by the state, we conclude that clear and convincing reasons for the downward departure are not required where a youthful offender sentence is below the recommended guideline sentence. See State v. Diers; State v. Nealy, 532 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The defendant's sentence is therefore affirmed.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). This court recently decided the issue before us to the benefit of the defendant in State v. Nealy, 532 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) in which we certified the following question to the supreme court: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED TO STATE WRITTEN REASONS WHEN IT IMPOSES A SENTENCE UNDER THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ACT WHICH IS LESS THAN THAT RECOMMENDED UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?