VT v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

VT v. State

782 So. 2d 928, 2001 WL 280635

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2001

Docket2D00-1464

StatusPublished

This text of 782 So. 2d 928 (VT 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

VT v. State, 782 So. 2d 928, 2001 WL 280635 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

782 So.2d 928 (2001)

V.T., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D00-1464.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 2001.

*929 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

V.T. challenges the circuit court's order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for robbery and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm without comment the court's finding that V.T. committed a delinquent act. However, because the trial court erred by not making the proper statutorily required findings and by entering only one commitment order for both offenses, we reverse V.T.'s adjudicated commitment order and remand for entry of appropriate orders containing proper findings.

Under section 985.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), a trial court is required to make "specific finding[s] of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit" a juvenile. See also H.L.L. v. State, 595 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court here made no oral findings at the time of sentencing, and the written commitment order merely states that V.T. was found guilty of counts one and two. Furthermore, the trial court erred by entering only one commitment order for both offenses. P.J.C. v. State, 730 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Although the State acknowledges these errors, it argues V.T. did not preserve them for appeal. However, a sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory limitations is "illegal" and must be corrected as fundamental error. Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

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

782 So.2d 928 (2001)

V.T., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D00-1464.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 2001.

*929 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

V.T. challenges the circuit court's order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for robbery and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm without comment the court's finding that V.T. committed a delinquent act. However, because the trial court erred by not making the proper statutorily required findings and by entering only one commitment order for both offenses, we reverse V.T.'s adjudicated commitment order and remand for entry of appropriate orders containing proper findings.

Under section 985.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), a trial court is required to make "specific finding[s] of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit" a juvenile. See also H.L.L. v. State, 595 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court here made no oral findings at the time of sentencing, and the written commitment order merely states that V.T. was found guilty of counts one and two. Furthermore, the trial court erred by entering only one commitment order for both offenses. P.J.C. v. State, 730 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Although the State acknowledges these errors, it argues V.T. did not preserve them for appeal. However, a sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory limitations is "illegal" and must be corrected as fundamental error. Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 928, 2001 WL 280635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vt-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

V.T., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

V.T., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.