Kirby v. State

702 So. 2d 599, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13539, 1997 WL 741207
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kirby v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 658 So. 2d 1232
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 3, 1997·No. No. 96-03374·Published

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, challenges his sentencing as an adult. He maintains that the court’s failure to comply with section 39.059(8), Florida Statutes (1995), which requires the court to put into writing any decision to sentence a juvenile as an adult, requires reversal of his sentence. While the state concedes, and we agree, that a written order is required under Brown v. State, 692 [600]*600So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), no new sentencing hearing is required. See Culliver v. State, 693 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc written order. We observe that appellant need not be present for the ministerial function of entering a written order that conforms to the judge’s oral pronouncement. See Culliver.

THREADGILL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

Kirby v. State, 702 So. 2d 599, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13539, 1997 WL 741207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

702 So. 2d 599 (Kirby v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Culliver v. State
693 So. 2d 1152 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Brown v. State
692 So. 2d 987 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)