You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hope v. State

Citations: 562 So. 2d 863; 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4670; 1990 WL 89760Docket: No. 89-2342

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 26, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Appellant's conviction and sentence as a youthful offender in adult court is under review. The trial court failed to adhere to section 39.111(7)(d) of the Florida Statutes, which mandates a written record documenting the decision to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile. The court did not provide sufficient information on whether it evaluated the six criteria outlined in section 39.111(7)(c) for determining the appropriateness of adult sanctions. Consequently, the appellate court reverses the decision and remands the case for resentencing consistent with the statutory requirements. Judges Ervin and Miner concur with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Evaluation of Criteria for Adult Sanctions on Juveniles

Application: The court must evaluate the six criteria outlined in section 39.111(7)(c) before determining the appropriateness of imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile.

Reasoning: The court did not provide sufficient information on whether it evaluated the six criteria outlined in section 39.111(7)(c) for determining the appropriateness of adult sanctions.

Mandatory Written Record for Adult Sanctions on Juveniles

Application: The trial court is required to comply with section 39.111(7)(d) of the Florida Statutes by maintaining a written record that documents the decision to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile.

Reasoning: The trial court failed to adhere to section 39.111(7)(d) of the Florida Statutes, which mandates a written record documenting the decision to impose adult sanctions on a juvenile.

Resentencing Requirement for Non-Compliance with Statutory Mandates

Application: Due to the trial court's failure to comply with statutory requirements, the appellate court reversed the decision and remanded the case for resentencing.

Reasoning: Consequently, the appellate court reverses the decision and remands the case for resentencing consistent with the statutory requirements.