Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Hampton v. State571 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) · 1D89-3325

Court
1st DCA
Decided
1991-01-03
On CourtListener
WOLF, Judge.

The appellant appeals the decision of the trial court to deny his motion to dismiss, and also alleges that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an adult without explaining the suitability of adult sanctions as statutorily required. While we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the appellant’s motion to dismiss, we find merit as to appellant’s second contention and, therefore, we reverse and remand.

The record reveals that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), in that the court failed to make specific findings of fact as to each of the six criteria for determining suitability of adult sanctions. Upon remand, the trial court must consider each of. the six criteria listed in section 39.111(7)(d), and include specific findings of fact and reasons for imposing an adult sanction. Martin v. State, 547 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.