Newberry v. State

597 So. 2d 812, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 874, 1992 WL 16599
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Newberry v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 616 So. 2d 1093
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 1992·No. No. 91-2055·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based upon a review of the record on appeal and a confession of error by the State, we hold that it was error for the trial court to sentence the defendant, a juvenile, as an adult without entering a specific written finding of fact and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions as required by section 39.059(7)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). See Stanley v. State, 582 So.2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Stickles v. State, 579 So.2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Tighe v. State, 571 So.2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand this case for resentenc-ing. Upon remand if the basis for the required findings are present and the trial court complies with section 39.059(7)(d), it may again impose adult sanctions.

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

Newberry v. State, 597 So. 2d 812, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 874, 1992 WL 16599 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

597 So. 2d 812 (Newberry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tighe v. State
571 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Stickles v. State
579 So. 2d 878 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Stanley v. State
582 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)