Case ID: so2d_770/html/1156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PARIENTE, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael HUTCHINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC95951.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 21, 2000.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and M.A. Lucas, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Petitioner.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann, Wesley Heidt, Kellie A. Nielan and Lori E. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review Hutchinson v. State, 731 So.2d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), based on conflict with State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently held that section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), applies to juveniles who are charged, tried, and convicted in adult criminal proceedings. See Cargle v. State, 770 So.2d 1151, 1153-54 (Fla.2000). Based on our decision in Car-gle, we approve the district court’s decision below that applied section 924.051 to petitioner’s failure to raise with the trial court, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), the sentencing judge’s failure to address in writing the decision to impose adult sanctions under section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

PARIENTE, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Cargle v. State, 770 So.2d 1151 (Fla.2000).

ANSTEAD, J., concurs. 
      
      . We decline to address the additional issues raised by petitioner since they exceed the basis upon which we accepted jurisdiction over the case.