Summers v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Summers v. State

684 So. 2d 729, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1624, 1996 WL 528832

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1996

DocketNo. 87817

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 729 (Summers 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.

Bluebook

Summers v. State, 684 So. 2d 729, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1624, 1996 WL 528832 (Fla. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

IS THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER THE WRITTEN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 39.059(7)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991) AND TROUTMAN V STATU, 680 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993) COGNIZIBLE COL-' LATERALLY?

Summers v. State, 670 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1993), we held that pursuant to the legislature’s clear mandate, a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c) before determining the suitability of adult sanctions and contemporaneously reduce its evaluation and findings to writing. Id. at 531. In Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995), we held that the trial court’s failure to file contemporaneous written reasons for departing from a guideline sentence was not fundamental error and thus could not be raised for the first time on collateral review. Id. at 1197. We agree with the district court’s reliance on Davis. The trial court’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be raised on direct appeal or it is waived. Based on Davis, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

IS THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER THE WRITTEN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 39.059(7)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991) AND TROUTMAN V STATU, 680 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993) COGNIZIBLE COL-' LATERALLY?

Summers v. State, 670 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1993), we held that pursuant to the legislature’s clear mandate, a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c) before determining the suitability of adult sanctions and contemporaneously reduce its evaluation and findings to writing. Id. at 531. In Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995), we held that the trial court’s failure to file contemporaneous written reasons for departing from a guideline sentence was not fundamental error and thus could not be raised for the first time on collateral review. Id. at 1197. We agree with the district court’s reliance on Davis. The trial court’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be raised on direct appeal or it is waived. Based on Davis, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 729, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1624, 1996 WL 528832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-state-fla-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack