Perkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perkins v. State

704 So. 2d 566, 1997 WL 362838

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-02904

StatusPublished

This text of 704 So. 2d 566 (Perkins 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

Perkins v. State, 704 So. 2d 566, 1997 WL 362838 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Robert Perkins appeals his adjudication as an adult for the offenses of burglary and criminal mischief. He has failed to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s decision to impose adult sanctions was appropriate. See § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995). In addition, as of October 1,1994, trial courts are no longer required to set forth specific findings of fact to support their decision to sentence juveniles as adults. Ch. 94-209, §§ 51, 150 at 1306, 1384, Laws of Fla. Rather, the only requirement is that the decision be made in writing. § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995).

The record in this case does not contain a written decision. Accordingly, we remand for entry of an order conforming to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of its decision to impose adult sanctions. This is merely a ministerial action, and Perkins need not be present.

Affirmed but remanded for entry of a written order.

LAZZARA, AC.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Robert Perkins appeals his adjudication as an adult for the offenses of burglary and criminal mischief. He has failed to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s decision to impose adult sanctions was appropriate. See § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995). In addition, as of October 1,1994, trial courts are no longer required to set forth specific findings of fact to support their decision to sentence juveniles as adults. Ch. 94-209, §§ 51, 150 at 1306, 1384, Laws of Fla. Rather, the only requirement is that the decision be made in writing. § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995).

The record in this case does not contain a written decision. Accordingly, we remand for entry of an order conforming to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of its decision to impose adult sanctions. This is merely a ministerial action, and Perkins need not be present.

Affirmed but remanded for entry of a written order.

LAZZARA, AC.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 566, 1997 WL 362838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.