ANTONIO LAZELLA COLLINS, 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's right to a written order for adult sanctions is not waived by a plea agreement absent explicit waiver.
A juvenile pleaded no contest to armed burglary and agreed to an adult sentence, but the trial court failed to enter a written order detailing the dec…
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 Adult Sanctions For Juveniles cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Antonio Collins, a juvenile, entered a plea of no contest to the charge of armed burglary, a first degree felony punishable by life. As part of his plea, he agreed to a term of eighty-two months’ imprisonment. He did not, however, waive his rights to a written order, as required by section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). See Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1993) (absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, a plea agreement does not waive a juvenile’s right to a written determination of the suitability of adult sanctions). Because Collins was sentenced after October 1, 1994, the 1994 version of section 39.057 applies to this case. Lutz v. State, 664 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court no longer needs to make specific factual findings concerning adult sanctions, but the statute still requires that a decision to impose adult sanctions be in writing. § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994); see also Grayson v. State, 671 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court here did not enter such a written order. We reverse and remand for resentencing. The lower court may again sentence Collins as an adult if it complies with section 39.059.
We have considered the state’s argument that a remand is unnecessary because, under section 39.022(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1993),1 the court is not required to comply with section 39.059 when sentencing a juvenile for a crime punishable by life imprisonment. We have held that this provision only applies when a defendant is indicted, not when he is charged by information. Kazalkoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (en banc). It is, therefore, inapplicable here.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur. . The 1994 amendments to Chapter 39 deleted this language from section 39.022. It now appears in section 39.0587(d). Ch. 94-209, §§ 19, 50, at 793-794, 831-832, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 684 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…trial court sentenced Smith on November 6, 1995, after the October 1, 1994, effective date of the amendment to section 39.059(7). Because he was sentenced after the effective date of the amendment, the amended statute applies. See Collins v. State, 685 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Grayson v. State, 671 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The amended statute does not require the trial court to state in a written order specific findings and address all of the statutory criteria to impose adult sanctions; howev…
-
Tucker v. State, 692 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e affirm without further discussion the appellant’s convictions we must reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resen-tencing because the trial court failed to reduce to writing its decision to sentence appellant as an adult'. Collins v. State, 685 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court is no longer required to make specific factual findings in regard to adult sanctions, however, the statute still requires that a court’s decision to impose adult sanctions must be in writing. § 39.059(7)(d), Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1993)
- Cemel Grayson v. State, 671 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Lutz v. State, 664 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Kazakoff v. State, 642 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)