Summers v. State, 87817
| Decision Date | 19 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 87817,87817 |
| Citation | 684 So.2d 729 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S394 Justin SUMMERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Justin Summers, Riverview, pro se.
Lossie Merritt, Miami, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Roberta G. Mandel, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Respondent.
We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER THE WRITTEN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 39.059(7)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991) AND TROUTMAN V. STATE, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993) COGNIZIBLE COLLATERALLY?
Summers v. State, 670 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), we held that pursuant to the legislature's clear mandate, a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c) before determining the suitability of adult sanctions and contemporaneously reduce its evaluation and findings to writing. Id. at 531. In Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995), we held that the trial court's failure to file contemporaneous written reasons for departing from a guideline sentence was not fundamental error and thus could not be raised for the first time on collateral review. Id. at 1197. We agree with the district court's reliance on Davis. The trial court's failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be raised on direct appeal or it is waived. Based on Davis, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddox v. State
...necessarily constitute an "illegal" sentence subject to correction at any time pursuant to rule 3.800(a).8 For example, in Summers v. State, 684 So.2d 729 (Fla.1996), we found that the unobjected-to failure of the trial court to make statutorily mandated findings before imposing adult sanct......
-
Maddox v. State
...recently distinguished sentencing error from trial error, and has found fundamental error only in the latter context. Summers v. State, 684 So.2d 729, 729 (Fla.1996) ("The trial court's failure to comply with the statutory mandate is a sentencing error, not fundamental error, which must be ......
-
Wright v. State
...OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Affirmed. See Mann v. State, 112 So.3d 1158 (Fla.2013); Cote v. State, 793 So.2d 907 (Fla.2001); Summers v. State, 684 So.2d 729 (Fla.1996); Lee v. State, 679 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1996); State v. Griffith, 675 So.2d 911 (Fla.1996); Hughes v.. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d......
-
Tatum v. State
...regarding the necessity of adult sanctions. See § 39.059(7)(d), Fla. Stat. (1991). We reject that claim on authority of Summers v. State, 684 So.2d 729 (Fla.1996). We find no merit to appellant's remaining points and reject them without Tatum v. State, 741 So.2d 1266, 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999......