Wilks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilks v. State

570 So. 2d 447, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9232, 1990 WL 197920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3319

StatusPublished

This text of 570 So. 2d 447 (Wilks 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

Wilks v. State, 570 So. 2d 447, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9232, 1990 WL 197920 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the imposition of adult sanctions upon a juvenile defendant. The record reveals that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), in that the court failed to make specific findings of fact as to each of the six criteria for determining suitability of adult sanctions. Specifically, [448]*448the trial court failed to adequately address those portions of the first and sixth criteria concerning the extent to which adult sanctions are required for the protection of the public. See § 39.111(7)(c)l, 6, Fla.Stat. (1989). Upon remand, the trial court must consider each of the six criteria listed in section 39.111(7)(c), and include specific findings of fact and reasons for imposing an adult sanction. Martin v. State, 547 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the imposition of adult sanctions upon a juvenile defendant. The record reveals that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), in that the court failed to make specific findings of fact as to each of the six criteria for determining suitability of adult sanctions. Specifically, [448]*448the trial court failed to adequately address those portions of the first and sixth criteria concerning the extent to which adult sanctions are required for the protection of the public. See § 39.111(7)(c)l, 6, Fla.Stat. (1989). Upon remand, the trial court must consider each of the six criteria listed in section 39.111(7)(c), and include specific findings of fact and reasons for imposing an adult sanction. Martin v. State, 547 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 So. 2d 447, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9232, 1990 WL 197920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilks-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack