Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

464 So. 2d 1355

464 So.2d 1355

10 Fla.L.Weekly 736

Docket No. 84-1182.

Upshaw v. State

Grady UPSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-03-20

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1992

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“render a specific finding of fact and the reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 520 So. 2d 43 - Banks v. State

Relies on Murray v. State · 465 So. 2d 1334 - Cooper v. State · Leach v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-03-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1356 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm appellant's conviction but reverse his sentence for (1) failure of the trial court to explicate in writing, pursuant to section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes, the factors enumerated in the statute and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions, Cooper v. State,465 So.2d 1334 (1985); (2) failure of the record to confirm that the trial court referred to all six of the criteria mentioned in the statute (particularly, subsections (c)(4) and (c)(5)), Murray v. State,382 So.2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); and (3) failure of the record to disclose that a predisposition report was considered by the trial court. See Leach v. State,407 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We therefore remand for resentencing.

¶5AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

¶6DOWNEY, HERSEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

/464/so2d/1355 · .json · Public domain