Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peterson v. State

635 So. 2d 1085, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4333, 1994 WL 171652

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1994

DocketNo. 92-3564

StatusPublished

This text of 635 So. 2d 1085 (Peterson 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

Peterson v. State, 635 So. 2d 1085, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4333, 1994 WL 171652 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s first point regarding the granting of the state’s motion to set aside appellant’s plea of nolo contendere, conditioned upon a plea agreement. The state clearly showed that appellant, contrary to the terms of the agreement, failed to pass a polygraph test. Therefore, the state was not bound by the agreement. See Hoffman v. State, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985).

As to appellant’s second point regarding the imposition of adult sanctions, we conclude that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), in that it neither addressed each of the six statutory factors, nor entered the written order required under section 39-059(7)(d), contemporaneously with the sentences. Because compliance with section 39.-059(7) is mandatory, we reverse and remand for resentencing. See Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s first point regarding the granting of the state’s motion to set aside appellant’s plea of nolo contendere, conditioned upon a plea agreement. The state clearly showed that appellant, contrary to the terms of the agreement, failed to pass a polygraph test. Therefore, the state was not bound by the agreement. See Hoffman v. State, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985).

As to appellant’s second point regarding the imposition of adult sanctions, we conclude that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), in that it neither addressed each of the six statutory factors, nor entered the written order required under section 39-059(7)(d), contemporaneously with the sentences. Because compliance with section 39.-059(7) is mandatory, we reverse and remand for resentencing. See Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 1085, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4333, 1994 WL 171652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack