Aguirre v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aguirre v. State

661 So. 2d 29, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 1994 WL 714434

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1994

DocketNo. 93-03677

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 29 (Aguirre v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aguirre v. State, 661 So. 2d 29, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 1994 WL 714434 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

The defendant, Alberto Aguirre, appeals his judgments and sentences for first degree burglary while armed, grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm.¹ We find merit only in his contention that the trial court failed to comply with the strict standard set forth in Troutman v. State, 680 So.2d 528, 531 (Fla. 1993). Because Troutman requires that the trial court give an individualized evaluation of how the defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), before imposing an adult sentence, we are compelled to remand for resentencing. Comparing the oral and written reasons given in Troutman with those given by the trial court here, we conclude that the reasons given here are equally conclusory and merely track the language of the statutory criteria. See, e.g., McCoy v. State, 632 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Moreover, the written findings were issued seven days after sentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again sentence the defendant as an adult provided that it strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(e). See Troutman, 630 So.2d 528.

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FULMER, Judge.

The defendant, Alberto Aguirre, appeals his judgments and sentences for first degree burglary while armed, grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm.¹ We find merit only in his contention that the trial court failed to comply with the strict standard set forth in Troutman v. State, 680 So.2d 528, 531 (Fla. 1993). Because Troutman requires that the trial court give an individualized evaluation of how the defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), before imposing an adult sentence, we are compelled to remand for resentencing. Comparing the oral and written reasons given in Troutman with those given by the trial court here, we conclude that the reasons given here are equally conclusory and merely track the language of the statutory criteria. See, e.g., McCoy v. State, 632 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Moreover, the written findings were issued seven days after sentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again sentence the defendant as an adult provided that it strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(e). See Troutman, 630 So.2d 528.

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 29, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562, 1994 WL 714434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguirre-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack