Pittman v. State
This text of 620 So. 2d 1232 (Pittman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
We have for review Pittman v. State, 595 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the district court recognized conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We find conflict and have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
The issue in the instant case is whether a negotiated plea agreement to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile waives the juvenile’s rights under section 39.059, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). We addressed this issue in Sirmons v. State, 620 So.2d 1249 [1233]*1233(Fla.1993), and held that absent an intelligent and knowing waiver on the record a negotiated plea agreement does not waive a juvenile’s rights for the court to make written findings and reasons for the imposition of adult sanctions. Id. at 1251.
The record shows that the juvenile in the instant case did not intelligently or knowingly waive his right to have the trial court determine the appropriateness of adult sanctions. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion in Sirmons.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
620 So. 2d 1232, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 386, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1068, 1993 WL 219766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-state-fla-1993.