ROBERT M. LEACH, 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.
Juvenile defendant's convictions affirmed but sentences vacated because trial court's order imposing adult sanctions failed to include specific findings of fact for each statutory criterion as required by section 39.111(7)(d).
A trial court's order imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile must contain specific findings of fact relating to each statutory criterion, not merely track the statutory language.
[1] When imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile offender, a trial court must make specific findings of fact relating to each statutory criterion under section 39.111(7)(c), n…
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 intelligenceDefendant, a juvenile, committed twenty offenses of burglary, attempted burglary, and grand theft and was sentenced as an adult to community control a…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Chief Judge.
The defendant appeals his judgments and sentences for twenty offenses of burglary, attempted burglary and grand theft. The defendant was a juvenile when he committed the offenses but was sentenced as an adult to a combination of community control and probation. Pursuant to section 39.111, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial judge entered an order determining the suitability of adult sanctions. The order tracks the statutory criteria of section 39.-lll(7)(c) but does not contain specific findings of fact relating to this particular defendant as to each of the statutory criteria. We have previously held that such an order does not satisfy the requirements set forth in section 39.111(7)(d) that the trial court must “render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions.” See Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the statute.
Judgments AFFIRMED; sentences VACATED; cause REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…en considered, or merely tracking the criteria, is not enough. Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Keith; Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Murphy v. State, 546 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th [*84] DCA 1989); Leach v. State, 545 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In the case before us, the record does not reveal that the trial court made any written findings of fact in compliance with the statute. While it has been stated in Lang, Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), re…
-
Hicks v. State, 568 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rder finding that adult sanctions should be imposed did not comply with the statutory requirements of section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with that statute. Leach v. State, 545 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). While we are bound by Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988), to uphold the legality of the probationary split sentence…
-
Edwards v. State, 581 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…Fla.1991). The court did err in sentencing appellant as an adult when he was under eighteen years of age at the time the crime was committed, especially because the judge did not comply with section 39.111, Florida Statutes (1989). Leach v. State, 545 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED. GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Keith v. State, 542 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)