Springfield v. State
This text of 657 So. 2d 63 (Springfield 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.
Opinion
Damion Springfield, a juvenile, challenges the lower court’s imposition of adult sanctions after he pleaded no contest to a felony and a misdemeanor charge. He asserts that the court did not comply with the mandates of Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1993). The state concedes error because the court did not make individualized findings under section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), and because it failed to enter a contemporaneous written order stating its reasons for imposing adult sanctions. We, therefore, reverse Mr. Springfield’s sentence, and remand for further proceedings. The trial court may again sentence him as an adult if it complies with the requirements of section 39.059(7)(c) and Troutman. Kazakoff v. State, 642 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
657 So. 2d 63, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7320, 1995 WL 396363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springfield-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.