HECTOR RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-09-29
No. 95-1345
PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
660 So. 2d 817 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
GOSHORN, Judge.

GOSHORN, Judge.

Hector Ramos contends in his Rule 3.850 motion that the trial court erred in imposing adult sanctions without making the requisite statutory findings and that counsel was ineffective in not opposing the court’s imposition of adult sanctions. The trial court denied Ramos’s motion, stating that “An examination of the court files clearly shows that the defendant was 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offenses.” No documents, however, were attached to the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for attachment of the record refuting Ramos’ claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Kison Evans v. State, 672 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
    …e court failed to enter written findings as to the suitability of adult sanctions before imposing sentence. Our court previously held that this allegation is legally sufficient and precludes summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion. See Ramos v. State, 660 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Wood v. State, 655 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). If there is a complete absence of written findings, there is no authority for sentencing a juvenile as an adult an…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw