Having reviewed the transcripts of the violation of probation hearing and the change of plea, we find no error as to appellant’s first two points on appeal. However, the third point requires remand, which we do.

Briefly, the trial court, having properly found appellant to be in violation of his probation, then sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment for the original charge of robbery with a weapon. However, it retained jurisdiction pursuant to section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1981), without stating the basis with “individual particularity.”^[1] See Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1982); LaChance v. State, 396 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Subsequently, in writing, the trial court stated with particularity its reasons for retaining jurisdiction.^[2] Appellant had no opportunity[*56] to respond to the written order. See Thornton v. State, 442 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse the order retaining jurisdiction, and remand with direction that appellant be given an opportunity to hear and respond at an appropriate sentencing to be conducted should the trial court seek to retain jurisdiction.

The following remarks are not directed to the retention of jurisdiction but to the fact that this gifted youngster, blessed with vast athletic ability, has now wasted all of the opportunity which those gifts have and would have provided — higher education being the most important. If there is any lesson to be learned from this tragic waste, it is that we are all trustees of our individual gifts; and that, somehow, we adults have to permanently instill in our children this awareness. Perhaps someday there will emerge a generation of parents who will not have to suffer being told by their grown children how they regret having lightly given up those avenues of self-expression that could have enriched their lives.