WALTER I. HARVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to file contemporaneous written reasons for imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile offender. The court also noted an error in the written judgment regarding a guilty plea versus a jury conviction.
Walter I. Harvey, who committed crimes as a juvenile, was sentenced to adult sanctions. The trial court's written reasons for imposing these sanctions…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
WHATLEY, Judge.
The appellant, Walter I. Harvey, challenges the imposition of adult sanctions for crimes he committed when he was a juvenile. He primarily contends that, pursuant to section 39.059, Florida Statutes (1993), and Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993), the trial court erred in failing to file contemporaneous written reasons for imposing adult sanctions on him. We agree. The record shows that the trial court’s written reasons were not filed until one week after sentencing. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing in strict compliance with section 39.059 and Troutman.
Further, the record shows that the written judgment entered in trial court case number 94r-2868 incorrectly reflects that Harvey entered a guilty plea to the aggravated battery offense charged therein. Harvey was convicted by a jury in that case. We therefore remand for correction of that written judgment.
Since the foregoing issues are dispositive, we do not address the remaining issues Harvey has raised on this appeal. Accordingly, the instant cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Harvey’s convictions are otherwise affirmed.
BLUE, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of D.H. & E.M. v. T.H., 695 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…that reunification with the parent poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the ehild[ren].” Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 577 So. 2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). Accord Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv. v. L.E.P., 667 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv. v. Penchansky, 634 So. 2d 722, 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Moreover, the trial court’s finding that the mother substantially complied with her performance agreements is clearly erroneous an…
Authorities Cited
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)