RICHARD ANTHONY MEYERS, 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 violated the juvenile's sentencing rights by failing to consider the statutory criteria for imposing adult sanctions and provide written reasons.
A juvenile was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of several offenses. The trial court imposed guideline sentences totaling ten years incarceration …
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.
HARRIS, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery evidencing prejudice, simple battery evidencing prejudice, and attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced appellant to guideline sentences totaling ten years incarceration followed by five years probation, but failed to provide any written reasons for imposing adult sanctions.
Appellant contends that the trial court violated his sentencing rights as a juvenile by failing to consider the statutory criteria in section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1991). We agree.
When juveniles are prosecuted as adults, the suitability or nonsuitability of adult sanctions must be determined by the court at sentencing. Section 39.059(7)(c) lists six criteria for consideration. Section 39.059(7)(d) states that any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing and in conformity with the criteria. The court must render a specific finding of fact and state the reasons for imposing adult sanctions. See Surrency v. State, 585 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Taylor v. State, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Conviction AFFIRMED; sentences REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.
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)…BARKETT, Chief Justice. We review Troutman v. State, 603 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), based on express and direct conflict with State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984), Bell v. State, 598 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), Meyers v. State, 593 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and [*530] Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).1 The issues are whether a trial court must consider each of the statutory criteria required under sections 39.059(7)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1991),2 at the t…
-
Fletcher Berry v. State, 636 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…nder section 39.059(7). See Troutman v. State, 603 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Moreover, none of the other decisions cited as the basis for conflict involved a waiver issue. See Bell v. State, 598 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Meyers v. State, 593 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). . The First District declined to follow Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982), the case upon which conflict jurisdiction…
Authorities Cited
- Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Taylor v. State, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- NME Hosps., Inc. v. Azzariti, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Surrency v. State, 585 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)