CHARLES LESLIE DIX, 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.
Affirmed conviction for armed robbery but reversed sentence because trial court failed to provide written reasons for sentencing a juvenile as an adult as required by statute.
A trial court must provide written reasons when sentencing a juvenile as an adult, as mandated by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons when sentencing a juvenile as an adult, as required by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and a codefendant were tried jointly for armed robbery of a convenience store. The only eyewitness, the store clerk, identified both defenda…
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 Written Reasons For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery, the appellant raises two issues. The first is an evidentiary issue at the joint trial of the appellant and his codefendant. The appellant contends that it was error to allow the State to present a taped statement of the only eyewitness to the crime, the convenience store clerk. The witness had difficulty in identifying the appellant’s codefendant at trial although she had easily identified him in her taped statement made the day after the crime as well as in a subsequent photopack identification. The witness had unequivocally and confidently identified the appellant at all times before and during the trial because of a personal acquaintance with him. We find that any error in allowing the taped statement, which merely repeated the already strong out-of-court and in-court identification of the appellant by the witness, was harmless error, if error at all. We therefore affirm on this issue.
In his second issue, the appellant contends that, since he was a juvenile when he committed the offense, the court committed error when it sentenced him as an adult without providing written reasons as mandated by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). He is correct, as the state concedes. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We reverse on this issue alone and remand with directions that the necessary written reasons be provided by the trial court.
The conviction is affirmed, the sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 544 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…, failure to comply with the safeguards of the statute is harmful error. Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing pursuant to section 39.111. See Dix v. State, 533 So. 2d 1189 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). If adult sanctions are again imposed, the trial court [*1078] is directed to make the required finding in writing. Reversed and remanded. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.…
-
Weigel v. State, 581 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…bove criteria. The court shall render a specific finding of fact and the reasons to impose adult sanctions. Failure to comply with this section requires reversal of the sentence. See Dinks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Dix v. State, 533 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA [*635] 1988); Clemons v. State, 508 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Reversed and remanded for new trial. SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)