← Case library
5th DCAMay 12, 2026Affirmed; conflict certified⚡ Circuit Split Resolved

Manago v. State

Case No. 5D2024-1343

In a juvenile-offender resentencing under section 921.1401, the Fifth DCA held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting and considering the defendant's prison disciplinary records—including reports of unadjudicated (uncharged) battery and lewd conduct—as evidence bearing on his rehabilitative potential under section 921.1401(2)(j). The court distinguished Norvil's due-process concerns about mere arrests (based only on probable cause) from prison disciplinary proceedings, which afford the inmate notice, an opportunity to contest the charges, and an administrative appeal, satisfying due process. The panel expressly certified conflict with the Second DCA's decision in Love v. State, 235 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Key facts

  • Juvenile offender sought resentencing under section 921.1401 after being originally sentenced to prison; trial court admitted prison disciplinary records documenting unadjudicated battery and lewd conduct allegations.
  • Trial court considered the disciplinary records as evidence of the defendant's rehabilitative potential at the resentencing hearing.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This decision creates an express, certified conflict with the Second DCA's Love decision on whether unadjudicated prison disciplinary conduct may be considered at a juvenile offender's resentencing, making it ripe for… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.