OSCAR EARL YOUNGBLOOD, 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 erred by failing to include the requisite factual findings and reasons in its order imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile.
A juvenile pleaded nolo contendere to armed robbery and attempted armed robbery and was subsequently ordered to receive adult sanctions. The trial cou…
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.
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, appeals an order imposing adult sanctions following his pleas of nolo contendere to one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. After consideration of each of the points appellant raises, we have determined that the only argument having merit is that the trial court failed to include the requisite factual findings in its order determining the suitability of adult sanctions.
Section 39.111(7), Florida Statutes (1987) governs disposition of a case in which a juvenile has been tried and convicted as an adult. Subsection (d) mandates that when adult sanctions are imposed upon a juvenile, the trial court must render in writing specific findings of fact and reasons for the decision. In doing so, the court must consider six factors enumerated in section 39.-111(7)(c) of the statute. Failure to follow the mandate of the statute requires the appellate court to remand the case for re-sentencing. State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013, 1017 (Fla.1984). In the present case, in the order imposing adult sanctions upon appellant, the trial court simply tracked the six broad criteria set forth in section 39.111(7)(c) using con-clusory language without identifying any specific underlying findings of fact or reasons; nor were the four factors enumerated in section 39.111(7)(c)(5) mentioned. See Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See also Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (examples of supporting reasons and factors conforming to the statutes).
As for appellant’s argument concerning withdrawal of his plea of nolo contendere, if, on remand, the appellant wishes to pursue this issue he should file a proper motion below. Peak v. State, 399 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)…rt must give an individualized evaluation of how a particular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere conclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We next turn to the question of whether the court’s evaluation and findings must be contemporaneously reduced to writing. Section 39.059(7)(d) makes clear that any decision to…
-
McCOY v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…rt must give an individualized evaluation of how a particular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere eonclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Id. 630 So. 2d at 531. See also Kelly v. State, 605 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Tighe v. State, 571 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The trial court’s reasons for sentencing…
-
Hangen v. State, 651 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…rt must give an individualized evaluation of how a particular juvenile fits within the criteria. Mere conclusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient. Jackson v. State, 588 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Youngblood v. State, 560 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).” McCoy v. State, 632 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), quoting Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528, 531 (Fla.1993); and citing Kelly v. State, 605 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 199…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Peak v. State, 399 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)