Summers v. State
Supreme Court of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER THE WRITTEN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 39.059(7)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991) AND TROUTMAN V STATU, 680 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993) COGNIZIBLE COL-' LATERALLY?
Summers v. State, 670 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1993), we held that pursuant to the legislature’s clear mandate, a trial court must consider each of the criteria of section 39.059(7)(c)…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
- Troutman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Whitaker v. Department of Ins. and TreasurerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
- Summers v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
3Cited by7 opinions
- Maddox v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
- Maddox v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- Cummings-El v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1996
- Tisdol v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
- Tatum v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.