Tharp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tharp v. State

648 So. 2d 229, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1994 WL 714432

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1994

DocketNo. 93-02253

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 648 So. 2d 229 (Tharp 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

Tharp v. State, 648 So. 2d 229, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1994 WL 714432 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Daniel A. Tharp appeals his judgments and sentences for armed burglary, grand theft and aggravated assault. We find merit only in the issue raised concerning the defendant’s sentencing as an adult.

Tharp contends that, in sentencing him as an adult, the trial court failed to sufficiently state its considerations and findings as to why juvenile sanctions were not suitable. Pursuant to Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), the trial court is required to give an individualized evaluation of how a juvenile defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). As in Troutman, the reasons given here by the trial court are eonclusory and merely track the language of the statute.

Moreover, the written findings in this case were issued five days after the sentencing hearing, which cannot be considered sufficiently contemporaneous. See Troutman, 630 So.2d at 532.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing. On remand the trial court may again sentence Tharp as an adult, provided the court strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(c), taking into consideration conditions existing at the time of sentencing. See Kazakoff v. State, 642 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

Daniel A. Tharp appeals his judgments and sentences for armed burglary, grand theft and aggravated assault. We find merit only in the issue raised concerning the defendant’s sentencing as an adult.

Tharp contends that, in sentencing him as an adult, the trial court failed to sufficiently state its considerations and findings as to why juvenile sanctions were not suitable. Pursuant to Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), the trial court is required to give an individualized evaluation of how a juvenile defendant fits within the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). As in Troutman, the reasons given here by the trial court are eonclusory and merely track the language of the statute.

Moreover, the written findings in this case were issued five days after the sentencing hearing, which cannot be considered sufficiently contemporaneous. See Troutman, 630 So.2d at 532.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing. On remand the trial court may again sentence Tharp as an adult, provided the court strictly complies with section 39.059(7)(c), taking into consideration conditions existing at the time of sentencing. See Kazakoff v. State, 642 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 229, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1994 WL 714432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tharp-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack