From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 9, 1994
635 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 92-3564.

May 9, 1994.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County; L. Arthur Lawrence, Jr., Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Chris W. Hoeg, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Public Defender, Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellee.


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.


Summaries of

Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 9, 1994
635 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Peterson v. State

Case Details

Full title:BERT M. PETERSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 9, 1994

Citations

635 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)