FRANCES E. ADDISON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for sentencing a juvenile as an adult, necessitating a remand for resentencing.
Appellant, a juvenile, was sentenced as an adult. The trial court did not provide a written explanation for this decision as required by statute. Appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Juveniles as Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
In sentencing appellant as an adult, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1985), which mandates that, when sentencing a juvenile as an adult, the trial court must explain in writing why adult sanctions are appropriate. The sentence must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979).
Appellant also asserts an ex post facto violation by reason of the trial court’s assessment of costs under Section 27.-3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985), the offense having occurred three months before the effective date of that section. However, no objection on ex post facto grounds having been made in the trial court, appellant is precluded from raising that point on appeal. Slaughter v. State, 493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The state concedes, however, that under Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the imposition of such costs should be reversed and the cause remanded for an indigency determination. See also Slaughter v. State, supra.
Finally, we have considered appellant’s argument that the trial court’s jury instruction on voluntary intoxication denied appellant a fair trial. We find appellant's argument to be without merit.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s conviction but REVERSE the sentence and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Peterson v. State, 511 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ain in writing why adult sanctions are suitable, treating the criteria set forth in Section 39.111(7)(c). The sentence must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); Addison v. State, 503 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Banks v. State, 488 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- Slaughter v. State, 493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Bethune v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)