Ramos v. State

660 So. 2d 817, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10206, 1995 WL 571473
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 29, 1995·No. No. 95-1345·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

Hector Ramos contends in his Rule 3.850 motion that the trial court erred in imposing adult sanctions without making the requisite statutory findings and that counsel was ineffective in not opposing the court’s imposition of adult sanctions. The trial court denied Ramos’s motion, stating that “An examination of the court files clearly shows that the defendant was 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offenses.” No documents, however, were attached to the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for attachment of the record refuting Ramos’ claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

Ramos v. State, 660 So. 2d 817, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10206, 1995 WL 571473 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

660 So. 2d 817 (Ramos v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Evans v. State
672 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)