Menchaca v. State

636 So. 2d 178, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4162, 1994 WL 151381
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 29, 1994·No. No. 92-02462·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Chief Judge.

Gustavo Menehaca was seventeen years old when he and several other young men forcefully invaded a home and terrorized the residents. He was charged with and convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling, two counts of robbery, grand theft of a firearm, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. Mencha-ca now challenges his sentence, contending that the trial court erred by failing to make written findings concerning the propriety of adult sanctions. We agree and remand for resentencing.

The trial court was bound to consider each of the criteria in section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes, and to provide written reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions contemporaneous with the sentencing. Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993). On remand, the court may impose adult sanctions after strict application of the statutory criteria and the reduction of his findings to writing. Troutman.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

Menchaca v. State, 636 So. 2d 178, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4162, 1994 WL 151381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

636 So. 2d 178 (Menchaca v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Knight v. State
656 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Satalino v. State
652 So. 2d 1231 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Gedeon v. State
636 So. 2d 178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)