ADAM JOLLY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-08-07
No. AV-329
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
454 So. 2d 45 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
WIGGINTON, Judge.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant, who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, asserts error in the trial judge’s failure to follow the juvenile sentencing provisions of section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1981). Although appellant voiced no objection to that failure in the trial court, we are compelled to reverse and remand for resentencing in light of the recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 .(Fla.1984), in which the court declared:

We hold that the provisions of section 39.111(6) must be followed by a trial judge in sentencing a juvenile as an adult, and the failure to do so requires a remand for resentencing.

In Rhoden, the court rejected the state’s argument that the respondent’s failure to object to the trial court’s failure to follow the statute precluded appellate review of that issue.

We reverse and remand to the trial coúrt for resentencing in compliance with the provisions of section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1981).

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
    …ls not waived by failure of defendant to make contemporaneous objection Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Rhoden v. State, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); See also Weston v. State, 452 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jolly v. State, 454 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Perry v. State, 457 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Guidelines do not require defendant to "knowingly and intelligently" select to be sentenced under the guidelines Kiser v. State, 455 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Moore…
  • Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
    …the defendant to make a contemporaneous objection upon the imposition of sentence does not vitiate his right to appeal from the trial court’s departure from the guidelines. See also Weston v. State, 452 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jolly v. State, 454 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); compare Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla.1982), and Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (on motion for rehearing) (contemporaneous objection required as prerequisite to appeal from trial court’s reten…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw