V.T., 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.
The court held that a trial court must make specific findings for juvenile commitment and enter separate orders for each offense.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for robbery and resisting an officer and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The trial court failed…
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 Resisting An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
V.T. challenges the circuit court’s order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for robbery and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm without comment the court’s finding that V.T. committed a delinquent act. However, because the trial court erred by not making the proper statutorily required findings and by entering only one commitment order for both offenses, we reverse V.T.’s adjudicated commitment órder and remand for entry of appropriate orders containing proper findings.
Under section 985.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), a trial court is required to make “specific findingfs] of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit” a juvenile. See also H.L.L. v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court here made no oral findings at the time of sentencing, and the written commitment order merely states that V.T. was found guilty of counts one and two. Furthermore, the trial court erred by entering only one commitment order for both offenses. P.J.C. v. State, 730 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Although the State acknowledges these errors, it argues V.T. did not preserve them for appeal. However, a sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory limitations is “illegal” and must be corrected as fundamental error. Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.S.B. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…h the trial court’s sentence is supported by competent and substantial evidence, it failed to specify the reasons, either oral or written, for imposing the harsher sentence. Accordingly, we must set aside the order of disposition. See V.T. v. State, 782 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); A.P. v. State, 718 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We remand to the trial court to consider the Department’s recommendations and if the court chooses to disregard those recommendations, we direct the court to prepare a written…
-
A.M. v. State, 792 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…efly stating the facts upon which the finding of guilt is based. We [*640] agree. Reversible error occurs when the trial court fails to set forth specific written findings regarding its reasons to adjudicate and commit a juvenile. See V.T. v. State, 782 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also A.P.v. State, 718 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Although the trial court set forth oral findings of fact on the record which were sufficient to support the delinquency adjudication, remand is necessary so the trial cou…
Authorities Cited
- Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- H.L.L. v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Powell v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Huskins v. State, 730 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)