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

Peterson v. State635 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) · DCA92-3564

Court
District Court of Appeal
Decided
1994-05-09
On CourtListener
ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s first point regarding the granting of the state’s motion to set aside appellant’s plea of nolo contendere, conditioned upon a plea agreement. The state clearly showed that appellant, contrary to the terms of the agreement, failed to pass a polygraph test. Therefore, the state was not bound by the agreement. See Hoffman v. State, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985).

As to appellant’s second point regarding the imposition of adult sanctions, we conclude that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), in that it neither addressed each of the six statutory factors, nor entered the written order required under section 39-059(7)(d), contemporaneously with the sentences. Because compliance with section 39.-059(7) is mandatory, we reverse and remand for resentencing. See Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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