Rubek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubek v. State

640 So. 2d 1199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7634, 1994 WL 397507

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2502

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 1199 (Rubek 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

Rubek v. State, 640 So. 2d 1199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7634, 1994 WL 397507 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sentence as an adult is reversed and remanded for resentencing. In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), the court made it clear that sections 39.-059(7)(e) and (d), Florida Statutes, must be followed before imposing an adult sentence on a juvenile. Here, the court’s decision was not reduced to writing as required. Additionally, although the trial court did make an effort to individualize its reasoning, many of the findings were, as in Troutman, essentially eonclusory and couched in the language of the statute.

On resentencing, if the court again determines that an adult sentence should be imposed, the statutory criteria should be more strictly applied. See Troutman. See also Bradley v. State, 559 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); West v. State, 503 So.2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. If he wishes, Appellant may pursue the request made to this court to withdraw his plea by addressing that issue to the trial court by proper motion. See e.g., Peak v. State, 399 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We reject the contention that on remand the [1200]*1200sentencing must be assigned to a different judge.

STONE, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sentence as an adult is reversed and remanded for resentencing. In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), the court made it clear that sections 39.-059(7)(e) and (d), Florida Statutes, must be followed before imposing an adult sentence on a juvenile. Here, the court’s decision was not reduced to writing as required. Additionally, although the trial court did make an effort to individualize its reasoning, many of the findings were, as in Troutman, essentially eonclusory and couched in the language of the statute.

On resentencing, if the court again determines that an adult sentence should be imposed, the statutory criteria should be more strictly applied. See Troutman. See also Bradley v. State, 559 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); West v. State, 503 So.2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. If he wishes, Appellant may pursue the request made to this court to withdraw his plea by addressing that issue to the trial court by proper motion. See e.g., Peak v. State, 399 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We reject the contention that on remand the [1200]*1200sentencing must be assigned to a different judge.

STONE, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7634, 1994 WL 397507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubek-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack