ANTHONY JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANTHONY JONES, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
634 So. 2d 1149
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1994)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Anthony Jones, argues and the state correctly concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as an adult without first making the required statutory findings of fact pursuant to sections 39.-059(7)(e) and (d) Florida Statutes (1991). See Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In all other respects we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
HO Yeaon SEO v. State, 143 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…even when it is admitted that the requisite acts occurred, for the defendant might nonetheless claim that he lacked the requisite bad state of mind.’ ” (quoting W. LaFave and J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 5.3, at 154-55 (1985))); Medina v. State, 634 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (concluding Medina had the right to an instruction on entrapment when “he admitted that he committed the acts that resulted in the drug deal, even though he denied knowing that the deal was going down when it did”); Terwill…
-
Jones v. State, 657 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…FARMER, Judge. When the trial court resentenced defendant pursuant to our mandate in Jones v. State, 634 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the court orally pronounced the sentence and discussed on the record all of the statutory criteria but did not contemporaneously file the written order containing the requisite findings. Instead, the court announced that the ori…
-
Aristides Cruz v. Singletary, 660 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…corpus, the petitioner claims that he is receiving disparate treatment from that of his co-defendant, whose conviction for trafficking in cocaine was reversed because of the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on entrapment. Medina v. State, 634 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, there is no due process violation. The petitioner was not entitled to raise the defense of entrapment because it was the petitioner’s co-defendant and not the police who induced him into committing the crimes. State v.…
Authorities Cited
- Vance H. Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)