GARY NEWSOME, 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.
Gary Newsome, a juvenile, appealed his conviction for dealing in stolen property and his sentence to two years' community control as an adult sanction. The court reversed because the trial court failed to inform him of his juvenile rights before accepting his no-contest plea, a procedural requirement established by the Florida Supreme Court in Sirmons v. State.
The defendant's conviction and sentence must be reversed because the trial court failed to comply with requirements established in Sirmons v. State regarding notification of juvenile rights before accepting a plea. On remand, Newsome has the right to withdraw his plea, and if he does not, the court must comply with Sirmons requirements before accepting it.
[1] A juvenile defendant must be informed of their rights as a juvenile before entering a plea.
[2] A conviction and sentence imposed on a juvenile defendant who was not informed of their rights as a juvenile must be reversed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although the trial court's procedure had been approved by this court when Mr. Newsome tendered his plea, it has now been disapproved by the supreme court. Sirmons v. State, 620 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence must be reversed.”
The court explains that the trial court's procedure, previously approved, was subsequently disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court, requiring reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Newsome, a juvenile, was charged by direct information with grand theft and dealing in stolen property. On August 13, 1992, he entered a written …
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
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The defendant, Gary Newsome, a juvenile, appeals his conviction for dealing in stolen property. He also challenges his sentence to two years’ community control, imposed as an adult sanction. We reverse.
The state charged Mr. Newsome by direct information with grand theft and dealing in stolen property.
On August 13, 1992, he entered a -written plea of no contest to the charge of dealing in stolen property. As part of the agreement, the state dismissed the grand theft charge. At the plea hearing, the trial court accepted Mr. Newsome’s plea without informing him of his rights as a juvenile.
On September 23, 1992, the trial court entered the adult sanction as recommended by the PSI and PDR. Although the trial court’s procedure had been approved by this court when Mr. Newsome tendered his plea, it has now been disapproved by the supreme court. Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1993).
Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction and sentence must be reversed. On remand, Mr. Newsome has the right to withdraw his plea. If he does not withdraw the plea, the trial court may accept the plea after complying with the requirements of Sirmons.
Mr. Newsome also challenges the findings of suitability for adult sanctions that were entered at his sentencing hearing. He argues that the form utilized by the court was conclusory and not sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of section 39.-059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1991). Because of our disposition of this case, we do not need to address the adequacy of the procedures at sentencing.
The trial court, however, is cautioned that a negotiated plea in which a minor intelligently waives the right to sentencing as a juvenile may not be sufficient to eliminate the requirement for case-specific findings concerning all of the criteria enumerated in section 39.059(7). The supreme court has recently emphasized the need for a contemporaneous sentencing order, containing an individualized evaluation of these factors that does not merely track the concluso-ry language of the statute. Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993).
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fletcher Berry v. State, 636 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…again the importance of the statutory sentencing rights conferred on juveniles by section 39.-059(7), nevertheless, Troutman can be read as overruling the holdings of those cases as they relate to a waiver of such rights.8 Compare Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (cautioning trial court on remand that after Troutman “a negotiated plea in which a minor intelligently waives the right to sentencing as a juvenile may not be sufficient to eliminate” the requirements of the statute). But then, o…
-
Figueroa v. State, 657 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…he pleas and his waiver of those rights was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Sirmons, 620 So. 2d at 1249; Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.170(j). Therefore, appellant’s subsequent motions to withdraw his pleas should not have been denied. Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The procedure utilized by the trial court was improper and therefore appellant’s judgments and sentences must be reversed. Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d at 252. We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate th…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1993)