G.S., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
G.S., APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
725 So. 2d 1153
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1998)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
G.S., a juvenile, challenges his long-term commitment to a level ten maximum-risk residential commitment facility, which was imposed because he was adjudicated to be in contempt for violating the conditions of his court ordered aftercare agreement. This court recently addressed this issue, and in so doing, interpreted the same statutory scheme applicable in the present case to preclude a recommitment to a level ten facility in cases such as this. See A.L. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Because the result in this case is dictated by this court’s decision in A.L., we reverse.
The sentence is reversed and this matter is remanded for resentencing.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arteaga v. State, 246 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Harlan Hillenbrand v. State, 790 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ecause of counsel’s admission of guilt on behalf of Hillenbrand. Nixon, 758 So. 2d at 623. Ineffectiveness of counsel is an issue that is generally not cognizable on direct appeal. Lawrence v. State, 691 So. 2d 1068, 1074 (Fla.1997); Cowan v. State, 725 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The issue is only reviewed on direct appeal if the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record. Eure v. State, 764 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Whether Hillenbrand consented to the trial strategy of couns…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of A.L. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)