DENNIS BOYLES, 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 affirmed the defendant's adult sentence but remanded for the trial court to correct its written sentencing order to conform with its oral findings regarding statutory factors for adult prosecution.
A trial court must reduce to writing its findings on all statutory factors for adult sentencing, and the written order must accurately reflect the court's oral pronouncements.
[1] A trial court's written sentencing order for adult prosecution must accurately reflect its oral findings on all statutory factors and cannot contradict the court's oral p…
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 was sentenced as an adult after the trial court orally analyzed six statutory factors and found that factors five and six did not apply. The…
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 Findings Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s sentence as an adult; however, we remand the case for the trial court to correct the written order to conform with the court’s oral findings at the two prior sentencing hearings.
At the first sentencing hearing the trial court orally analyzed the six statutory factors before sentencing appellant as an adult. The trial court specifically found that factors five and six did not apply, regarding appellant’s record, history and the likelihood of rehabilitation under the juvenile system. However, the court failed to reduce its findings, based on its analysis, to writing and therefore this court remanded the case for such written findings. Boyles v. State, 593 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), citing § 39.111(7)(d), Fla.Stat. (1989).
On remand the trial court again found that factors five and six, did not apply. However, the written order provided reflects that those factors apply. Additionally, the written order does not include the detail of the court’s initial oral pronouncement finding that factors one through four warrant adult sanctions. Accordingly, we remand the case and instruct the trial court to correct the order to reflect its findings at both sentencing hearings. See Nelson v. State, 601 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
WARNER and POLEN, JJ. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conboy v. State, 867 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. We affirm, but remand for the limited purpose of conforming the order of revocation of probation to the oral findings made at the end of the trial. See generally Boyles v. State, 608 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The trial court’s oral findings reflect that there was insufficient proof regarding the violation of probation based on the July 11, 2002, DUI charge. However, the order of revocation of probation includes the DUI charge as on…
Authorities Cited
- Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Sloan v. State, 593 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Lange v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)