RODNEY DEWAYNE PEARSON, 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 written findings supporting an adult sentence for a juvenile must be entered contemporaneously with sentencing and cannot be entered nunc pro tunc after an appeal is filed.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enter written findings supporting a sentence upon the filing of a notice of appeal.
[2] Written findings supporting an adult sentence for a juvenile must be entered at the time of sentencing, and nunc pro tunc entry does not satisfy this requirement.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodney Pearson, a juvenile, was sentenced as an adult for serious offenses. The trial court entered written findings supporting the adult sentence two…
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 as Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Pearson appeals his sentences for two counts of driving under the influence involving serious bodily injury and several related offenses. Pearson was a juvenile at the time of the offenses, but he was sentenced as an adult. The trial court entered an order containing written findings in support of Pearson’s sentence as required by section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1991), but the order was entered two months after sentencing, nunc pro tunc to the date of sentencing. We must reverse for two reasons.
At the time the written findings were entered, the trial court had been divested of jurisdiction by Pearson’s filing of a notice of appeal.1 Furthermore, although the findings were entered nunc pro tunc to the date of sentencing, the supreme court has held that written findings in support of an adult sentence must be entered at the time of sentencing. Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla.1993). See also Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (entry of written findings nunc pro tunc to date of sentencing does not satisfy contemporaneous requirement of Troutman).
Moreover, even if the findings had been entered contemporaneously, they would be considered insufficient because some of them were merely conelusory. As noted in Troutman, a “trial court must give an individualized evaluation of how a particular juvenile fits within the criteria [of the statute]. Mere conelusory language that tracks the statutory criteria is insufficient.” 630 So. 2d at 531.
Accordingly, we reverse Pearson’s sentences and remand for resentencing. The trial court may again impose adult sanctions upon Pearson “in light of conditions existing at the time of the original sentencing[,]” provided it complies with the requirements of section 39.059. 630 So. 2d at 533 (footnote omitted).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and FULMER, JJ., concur. . We note that Pearson abandoned his motion for reconsideration and/or correction of sentence by filing a notice of appeal. In re Forfeiture of $104,591, 589 So. 2d 283 (Fla.1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stuberfield v. State, 690 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…lying the provisions of section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes, as explained in Troutman and held in light of conditions as they were at the time of the former hearing.4 . See, e.g., Jones v. State, 657 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Pearson v. State, 657 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Walker v. State, 656 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Knight v. State, 656 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Philmore v. State, 656 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Wood v. State, 655 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gammage v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 589 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1991)
- Jackson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)