Farmer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farmer v. State

636 So. 2d 866, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4340, 1994 WL 178050

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1552

StatusPublished

This text of 636 So. 2d 866 (Farmer 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

Farmer v. State, 636 So. 2d 866, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4340, 1994 WL 178050 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions based on his negotiated guilty pleas, but we reverse appellant’s sentences because the trial court failed to consider the statutory criteria set forth in section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1991), at the time of sentencing appellant as an adult.

Appellant was a juvenile when he committed the offenses to which he pled guilty. Before sentencing a juvenile as an adult, a trial court must determine the suitability of adult sanctions by making required written factual findings in accordance with section 39.059(7). Sirmons v. State, 620 So.2d 1249, 1251 (Fla.1993). Absent an intelligent and knowing waiver that is manifest on the record, a juvenile entering a negotiated plea agreement does not waive any rights under section 39.059(7). Id.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to make any inquiry regarding the suitability of sentencing appellant as an [867]*867adult. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that appellant intelligently and knowingly waived his rights under section 39.059(7). Consequently, we affirm appellant’s convictions, but we reverse and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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