Legal Opinion

Hicks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 8, 1990No. 90-268Published

1Opinion of the Court

BARFIELD, Judge.

Because the trial court’s “checklist” order finding that adult sanctions should be imposed did not comply with the statutory requirements of section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with that statute. Leach v. State, 545 So.2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 543 So.2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Keith v. State, 542 So.2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

While we are bound by Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), to uphold the legality of the probationary split sentence imposed in this case, we certify to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Poore v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1988
  2. Glass v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  3. Keith v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  4. Smith v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  5. Leach v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API