WILLIAM FENELL PITTMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that a negotiated plea agreement does not waive a juvenile's statutory right to have the trial court make written findings and reasons for imposing adult sanctions absent an intelligent and knowing waiver on the record.
A negotiated plea agreement does not waive a juvenile's rights under section 39.059, Florida Statutes, to require the trial court to make written findings and reasons for imposing adult sanctions without an intelligent and knowing waiver on the record.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement does not waive a juvenile's statutory right to require written findings and reasons for imposing adult sanctions absent an intelligent and kno…
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 intelligenceA juvenile entered into a negotiated plea agreement that purportedly imposed adult sanctions without the trial court making written findings and reaso…
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 Juvenile Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Pittman v. State, 595 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the district court recognized conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We find conflict and have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
The issue in the instant case is whether a negotiated plea agreement to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile waives the juvenile’s rights under section 39.059, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). We addressed this issue in Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1993), and held that absent an intelligent and knowing waiver on the record a negotiated plea agreement does not waive a juvenile’s rights for the court to make written findings and reasons for the imposition of adult sanctions. Id. at 1251.
The record shows that the juvenile in the instant case did not intelligently or knowingly waive his right to have the trial court determine the appropriateness of adult sanctions. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion in Sirmons.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion.
BARKETT, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur, but with the same reservations I expressed in Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shanarvaty Wood v. State, 655 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…Statutes (1991). No written findings were made by the trial court in this case, although based on the statements made by the trial court at sentencing, there was ample material the court could have drawn on to make such findings. Pittman v. State, 620 So. 2d 1232 (Fla.1993) holds that a negotiated plea agreement to impose adult sanctions does not waive a juvenile defendant’s right to written findings. The court said: [AJbsent an intelligent and knowing waiver on the record a negotiated plea agreement does n…
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1993)
- Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Pittman v. State, 595 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)