STACEY ALLEN, 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 a juvenile's sentence must be vacated when the trial judge fails to issue a written order with specific findings regarding suitability for adult sanctions as required by statute.
A sixteen-year-old juvenile was charged as an adult with possession of cocaine, pleaded guilty, and was placed on probation. The defendant appealed, 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.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, a sixteen-year-old juvenile, was apparently originally taken into custody and detained as a juvenile offender (§ 39.03, Fla.Stat.) but the state attorney filed a direct information pursuant to section 39.04(2)(e)4., Florida Statutes, charging him with a felony (possession of cocaine, § 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat.). The defendant pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for three years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. The defendant appeals arguing that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes, concerning suitability for adult sanctions, in making the disposition that it did.
Although the defendant had not been transferred to the adult criminal division pursuant to sections 39.02(5) and 39.09(2), Florida Statutes, the requirements of section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes, nevertheless apply. Reed v. State, 544 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1980).
We vacate the defendant’s sentence because the trial judge failed to render, as required by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes, a written order containing specific findings of fact as to the suitability of imposing adult sanctions, a fundamental error. See State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); Murphy v. State, 546 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We remand for resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED and CAUSE REMANDED.
COWART, GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iglesias v. State, 599 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ias was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, it was within the state attorney’s discretionary authority to file directly in the criminal division an information charging defendant with manslaughter.1 E.g., [*250] Allen v. State, 560 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Banks v. State, 520 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). It is of no moment that the state attorney had previously obtained a waiver of jurisdiction as to an amended petition for delinquency charging defendant with two counts of vehic…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980)
- Reed v. State, 544 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Murphy v. State, 546 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)