Futrell v. State

402 So. 2d 29, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20567
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 15, 1981
DocketNos. 79-299, 79-300 and 80-1362
StatusPublished

This text of 402 So. 2d 29 (Futrell 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
Futrell v. State, 402 So. 2d 29, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20567 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant is correct in his position that because he is a juvenile he was entitled to be sentenced under the procedures specified in section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1979), which requires, among other things, the pri- or receipt and consideration of a predisposition report, notwithstanding the fact that his prosecution was initiated by direct information. See Austin v. State, 400 So.2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The sentences are therefore vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to resentence the defendant in accordance with the cited statute.

Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Austin v. State
400 So. 2d 495 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 So. 2d 29, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futrell-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.