JOHNATHAN JEFFRIES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2000-09-21
No. SC92007
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ concur., PARIENTE, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs., ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
770 So. 2d 1157 Florida Supreme Court (2000)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court approved a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision affirming a juvenile's 75-month sentence for armed robbery, holding that statutory preservation requirements for appeals apply to juveniles prosecuted as adults.


Holding

The Court held that section 924.051, Florida Statutes, applies to juveniles who are sentenced as adults pursuant to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes. Therefore, Jeffries' failure to comply with the preservation requirements was fatal to his appeal.


Headnotes

[1] Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), applies to juveniles sentenced as adults pursuant to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1995).

[2] A juvenile prosecuted as an adult must comply with statutory requirements for preserving issues for appeal.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), applies to juveniles who are sentenced as adults pursuant to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1995).”

The Court's holding that preservation requirements apply equally to juveniles prosecuted as adults.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jeffries, age 16, was charged with armed robbery with a weapon for an incident in May 1996. He entered a no contest plea and was adjudicated guilty. T…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Jeffries v. State, 701 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), which is a per curiam decision citing only to Cargle v. State, 701 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 770 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.1 We approve Jeffries.

The State filed an information charging Jeffries, who was then sixteen, with armed robbery with a weapon for an incident occurring in May 1996.2 Jeffries pled no contest and the court adjudicated him guilty, sentencing him to a term of seventy-five months in the Department of Corrections to run concurrently to any active sentence. Jeffries argued on appeal that there was no indication in the record that the trial court considered the statutorily mandated presentence investigation report or the criteria for sentencing a juvenile as an adult pursuant to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1995). The State countered that Jeffries failed to comply with section 924.051, created by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, which requires preservation of issues for appeal. The district court affirmed the sentence, citing to Cargle v. State, 701 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and Jeffries petitioned this Court for review.

Jeffries maintains that the preservation requirements of section 924.051 are inapplicable to juveniles who are prosecuted as adults. We disagree based on our decision in Cargle v. State, 770 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2000), wherein we held that “section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), applies to juveniles who are sentenced as adults pursuant to section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1995).” In accordance with our decision in Cargle, we approve Jeffries.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

. See Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 421 (Fla.1981)(holding that a district court decision issued without an opinion is reviewable if it cites as controlling authority a decision that is pending review in or has been reversed by this Court).

. The state prosecuted Jeffries as an adult pursuant to section 39.052(3)(a)5.b(I), Florida Statutes (1995), which permits the State to file an information rather than a delinquency petition against a juvenile who is at least sixteen years old. As of October 1, 1997, direct filing of informations against juveniles is governed by section 985.227, Florida Statutes (1999).

Concurrence
PARIENTE, J.,

PARIENTE, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Cargle v. State, 770 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.2000).

ANSTEAD, J., concurs.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw