DANIEL A. THARP, 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 held that the trial court failed to sufficiently state its considerations and findings for sentencing the juvenile defendant as an adult, and the written findings were not contemporaneous.
The defendant was convicted of armed burglary, grand theft, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as an adult.…
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 Sentencing Of Juveniles As Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Daniel A. Tharp appeals his judgments and sentences for armed burglary, grand theft and aggravated assault. We find merit only in the issue raised concerning the defendant’s sentencing as an adult.
Tharp contends that, in sentencing him as an adult, the trial court failed to sufficiently state its considerations and findings as to why juvenile sanctions were not suitable. Pursuant to Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993), the trial court is required to give an individualized evaluation of how a juvenile defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). As in Troutman, the reasons given here by the trial court are eonclusory and merely track the language of the statute.
Moreover, the written findings in this case were issued five days after the sentencing hearing, which cannot be considered sufficiently contemporaneous. See Troutman, 630 So. 2d at 532.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand the trial court may again sentence Tharp as an adult, provided the court strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(c), taking into consideration conditions existing at the time of sentencing. See Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tharp v. State, 677 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…This is the second appeal in this ease. In the previous appeal, we reversed and remanded for compliance with the dictates of Troutman v. State, 680 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993), in the sentencing court’s decision to impose adult sanctions. Tharp v. State, 648 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The appellant now brings his sentencing as an adult before us again complaining that the sentencing court did not comply with either our mandate or Troutman. We disagree. The order imposing adult sanctions is sufficiently particu…
-
Javaro K. Thomas v. State, 657 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, the court may again sentence Thomas as an adult, provided that section 39.059(7) is strictly complied with, taking into consideration the conditions existing at the time of the original sentencing. Tharp v. State, 648 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw plea, and remand for resentencing. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Section 39.022(5)(d) provides: Once a child has been transferred for criminal pros…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)