ALBERTO AGUIRRE, 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.
Defendant's convictions for first-degree burglary while armed, grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm are affirmed, but his adult sentence is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide an individualized evaluation of how he fit within the statutory criteria before imposing an adult sentence.
A trial court must provide an individualized evaluation of how a defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(e), Florida Statutes, before imposing an adult sentence, and conclusory findings that merely track statutory language are insufficient.
[1] A trial court's findings supporting an adult sentence for a juvenile defendant must provide an individualized evaluation of how the defendant fits within statutory criter…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlberto Aguirre was convicted of first-degree burglary while armed, grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm. The trial court imposed an adult senten…
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 Grand Theft Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
The defendant, Alberto Aguirre, appeals his judgments and sentences for first degree burglary while armed, grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm.1 We find merit only in his contention that the trial court failed to comply with the strict standard set forth in Troutman v. State, 680 So. 2d 528, 531 (Fla. 1993). Because Troutman requires that the trial court give an individualized evaluation of how the defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), before imposing an adult sentence, we are compelled to remand for resentencing. Comparing the oral and written reasons given in Troutman with those given by the trial court here, we conclude that the reasons given here are equally conclusory and merely track the language of the statutory criteria. See, e.g., McCoy v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Moreover, the written findings were issued seven days after sentencing.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again sentence the defendant as an adult provided that it strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(e). See Troutman, 630 So. 2d 528.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . §§ 810.02 and 812.014(2)(c)l and 3, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aguirre v. State, 680 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…his is the second appeal in this case. 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. Aguirre v. State, 661 So. 2d 29 (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…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Whitaker v. Dep't of Ins. & Treas., 680 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- McCOY v. State, 632 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)