Legal Opinion

Summers v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 19, 1996No. 87817PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
  2. Troutman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
  3. Whitaker v. Department of Ins. and TreasurerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  4. Summers v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Maddox v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Maddox v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  3. Cummings-El v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1996
  4. Tisdol v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
  5. Tatum v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API