M.A.V., 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.
A juvenile appeals the imposition of adult sanctions and restitution following his no-contest plea to armed robbery. The court affirmed the restitution order but reversed the adult sanctions order because the trial court failed to strictly comply with statutory requirements for written findings under Troutman v. State.
The court affirmed the restitution order because the juvenile failed to object to the state's proof or present evidence of inability to pay. The court reversed the adult sanctions order because the trial court's written order contained only conclusory findings that merely tracked statutory language, failing to strictly comply with Troutman's requirement that the decision be issued contemporaneously in writing with detailed consideration of each statutory criterion.
[1] A restitution order will be affirmed when a juvenile fails to object to the state's proof at the hearing and fails to present evidence of inability to pay.
[2] A trial court must strictly comply with statutory requirements for imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile, including issuing a written decision contemporaneously that con…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the decision to impose adult sanctions must be issued contemporaneously in writing and must consider each of the six criteria in section 39.059(7)(c)”
Establishes the core requirement for adult sanctions that the trial court failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.A.V., a juvenile, pleaded no contest to armed robbery. The state directly filed an information against M.A.V. in adult court. The trial court impose…
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 Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
M.A.V., a juvenile, appeals the imposition of adult sanctions and restitution after he pleaded no contest to the charge of armed robbery.
We affirm the restitution order because M.A.V. failed to object to the state’s proof at the hearing and also failed to present evidence of his inability to pay. See Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We reverse the order imposing adult sanctions because the trial court did not strictly comply with the supreme court’s decision in Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993), which was not issued at the time of sentencing in M.A.V.’s case. In Troutman the supreme court held section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1991), clearly requires that the decision to impose adult sanctions must be issued contemporaneously in writing and must consider each of the six criteria in section 39.059(7)(c). When the written order imposing adult sanctions in this case is read in conjunction with reasons announced at sentencing, it is clear that the trial court considered each of the statutory criteria.
Nevertheless, the supreme court disapproved this procedure in Troutman.
The trial court may not merely track the language of the statutory criteria in rendering its written findings, even if the transcript of the sentencing hearing contains a more detailed statement of the reasons for the imposition of adult sanctions. 630 So. 2d at 530-531. The supreme court cautioned in a footnote: “Strict adherence to the provisions of section 39.059(7) is especially important in cases involving the direct filing of criminal charges in adult court because the provisions provide the only formal means of ensuring that the juvenile is being properly treated as an adult.” 630 So. 2d at 531 n.
5. The state directly filed an information against M.A.V. in this case. Because the trial court’s written order imposing adult sanctions on M.A.V. contains some conclusory findings, we reverse that order. See, e.g., McCoy v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (comparing trial court’s written reasons for imposing adult sanctions with statutory criteria and concluding that written reasons “merely provided conclusory language tracking the statutory criteria”). On remand, the trial court should conduct further proceedings consistent with Troutman, which allows it to reimpose adult sanctions after strictly applying the statutory criteria and reducing its findings to a written order. 630 So. 2d at 533.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ring, appellant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See D.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Owens v. State, 679 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Gliszczynski v. State, 654 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); M.A.V. v. State, 643 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This finding that there has been no preservation of a portion of the restitution issues is not in conflict with State v. T.M…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- McCOY v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)