JUSTIN SUMMERS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to enter written findings required by statute regarding adult sanctions in juvenile cases is not fundamental error and cannot be raised for the first time on collateral review.
A trial court's failure to comply with the statutory mandate to enter written findings under section 39.059(7)(c) is sentencing error, not fundamental error, and must be raised on direct appeal or is waived.
[1] A trial court's failure to comply with the statutory requirement to enter written findings regarding the suitability of adult sanctions in juvenile cases constitutes sent…
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 intelligence“a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c) before determining the suitability of adult sanctions and contemporaneously reduce its evaluation and findings to writing”
The Court cited Troutman v. State for the proposition that trial courts have a clear statutory mandate regarding written findings in adult sanction determinations.
Summers was sentenced in a juvenile case where the trial court failed to enter the written findings required by statute regarding the suitability of a…
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 Statutory Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER THE WRITTEN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 39.059(7)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991) AND TROUTMAN V STATU, 680 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993) COGNIZIBLE COL-' LATERALLY?
Summers v. State, 670 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993), we held that pursuant to the legislature’s clear mandate, a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c) before determining the suitability of adult sanctions and contemporaneously reduce its evaluation and findings to writing. Id. at 531. In Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), we held that the trial court’s failure to file contemporaneous written reasons for departing from a guideline sentence was not fundamental error and thus could not be raised for the first time on collateral review. Id. at 1197. We agree with the district court’s reliance on Davis. The trial court’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be raised on direct appeal or it is waived. Based on Davis, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…ot all sentencing errors considered “fundamental” on direct appeal as before the enactment of the Act would necessarily constitute an “illegal” sentence subject to correction at any time pursuant to rule 3.800(a).8 For example, in Summers v. State, 684 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1996), we found that the unobjected-to failure of the trial court to make statutorily mandated findings before imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile did not constitute an illegal sentence subject to correction at any time, even though we had p…
-
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ecent rule amendments, that “fundamental error” no longer exists in the sentencing context. The supreme court has recently distinguished sentencing error from trial error; and has found fundamental error only in the latter context. Summers v. State, 684 So. 2d 729, 729 (Fla.1996) (“The trial court’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be raised on direct appeal or it is waived.”); Archer v. State, 673 So. 2d 17, 20 (Fla.) (“Fundamental error is…
-
COX v. State, 819 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2002)…upport this aggravator, see Pittman v. State, 646 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1994), as will circumstances where the victim drowned in his own blood and has a substantial period of time to consider his demise ... just like Mr. Baker. See Cummings[-El] v. State, 684 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1996); Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845 (Fla.1997); Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1984). The State has proven this aggravating circumstance beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt and it is entitled to great weight. This Cour…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- 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)
- Summers v. State, 670 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Johnson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)