midpage

Murphy v. StateMurphy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Jul 27, 1989
No. 88-1594
Versions:546 So. 2d 1157
14 Fla. L. Weekly 1779
1989 WL 82152
1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4239
DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence of a juvenile who was given adult sanctions. It is error to sentence a juvenile as an adult if section 39.111, Florida Statutes (1987) is not complied with.

*1158Here, as in Keith v. State, 542 So.2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the trial judge merely checked a checklist and did not comply with section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). This statute requires the sentencing judge to “render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision” in writing so they can be reviewed on appeal. Although we assume the sentencing judge put the checkmarks on the checklist we do not know because one check looks like another and the judge did not sign the checklist. So, it was error to fail to give written specific findings of fact and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions and the record cannot support a judicial action if a written action is not signed by the judge.

The sentence is quashed and this cause remanded for resentencing.

SENTENCE QUASHED; REMANDED.

DANIEL, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Murphy v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jul 27, 1989
Citations: 546 So. 2d 1157; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1779; 1989 WL 82152; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4239; No. 88-1594
Docket Number: No. 88-1594
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
Log In