Ross v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ross v. State

426 So. 2d 1228, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19044

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1306

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 426 So. 2d 1228 (Ross 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

Ross v. State, 426 So. 2d 1228, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19044 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery. On appeal he claims several errors with respect to the sentencing procedures followed by the trial court. We find no reversible error as to the claim that the trial judge penalized the appellant because of appellant’s exercise of his right to demand a jury trial. Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, we agree with the appellant that the trial court was required to make written findings pursuant to the provisions of section 39.111(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). Jones v. State, 418 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In addition, upon remand, the trial court should enter a written order justifying the retention of jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of section 947.-16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981).

[1229]*1229Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed but this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery. On appeal he claims several errors with respect to the sentencing procedures followed by the trial court. We find no reversible error as to the claim that the trial judge penalized the appellant because of appellant’s exercise of his right to demand a jury trial. Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, we agree with the appellant that the trial court was required to make written findings pursuant to the provisions of section 39.111(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). Jones v. State, 418 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In addition, upon remand, the trial court should enter a written order justifying the retention of jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of section 947.-16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981).

[1229]*1229Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed but this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 So. 2d 1228, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack