DAVID PRESTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
David Preston appeals the denial of his motion to correct his sentence following a probation violation revocation. Preston argues he was entitled to youthful offender designation and sentencing under Florida's Youthful Offender Act, but the court holds that by accepting probation without seeking youthful offender status, he waived his right to claim that protection.
A defendant who never sought youthful offender designation, was not sentenced to incarceration, was placed on probation, and fully accepted the terms of that probation has waived his right to question the legality of the probation and therefore is not entitled to sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act upon probation violation.
[1] A defendant who accepts and violates probation, without having sought designation as a youthful offender, waives the right to question the legality of a sentence imposed…
[2] A trial court's explicit warnings during a plea colloquy regarding the consequences of probation violation, including potential life imprisonment, are relevant to a defen…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where, however, a defendant never sought designation as a youthful offender and was not sentenced to a period of incarceration, but was placed on probation, the terms of which he fully accepted, we hold that the defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation which he has enjoyed and violated.”
The core holding establishing that acceptance of probation without seeking youthful offender status constitutes waiver of subsequent claims for youthful offender sentencing protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePreston was transferred from juvenile court to circuit court and pled guilty to robbery with use of a deadly weapon. The trial court explicitly warned…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
David Preston appeals from a court order denying his motion to correct the sentence imposed pursuant to a determination of probation violation. Preston claims that because he was originally entitled to designation as a youthful offender, he must be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act, Section 958.-05, Florida Statutes (1979) upon revocation of probation imposed in adult court. We disagree.
After being transferred from juvenile court to circuit court, Preston pled guilty to the charge of robbery with use of a deadly weapon. During the plea colloquy, the trial court emphasized to Preston that it was giving him a second chance and that if Preston violated his probation, he would be sent away for a long time, possibly for life. In addition, the court requested Preston’s mother to impress on Preston that if he violated probation he could be sentenced for life.
The Court: I’m trying to tell you in no uncertain terms that I mean business. This is not the juvenile court remember that. . ..
I have no hesitation in sentencing him. I have sentenced the young people to the state penitentiary before, and I’ll do it again. I take no pleasure, but it’s my job, and I will do it.
I just sent a fifteen-year-old girl over for life imprisonment on a murder charge. I sentenced a fourteen-year-old boy for life imprisonment. I don’t want to do it in your case. Don’t make me.
Preston’s argument on appeal is essentially that because he met the requirements entitling him to be designated as a youthful offender and because sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act is mandatory if a defendant meets the requirements of Section 958.04(1), Florida Statutes (1979), State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1981), the rule that a youthful offender who has violated probation may only be sentenced within the limitations of the Youthful Offender Act, Brandle v. State, 406 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Greene v. State, 398 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), should apply to him. Where, however, a defendant never sought designation as a youthful offender and was not sentenced to a period of incarceration, but was placed on probation, the terms of which he fully accepted, we hold that the defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation which he has enjoyed and violated. King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Accordingly the order of the trial court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…Appellants may not complain of any error in being placed on probation rather than in a community control program because they accepted the benefits of such improvident placement. Cf. King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The jurisdictional issue arises from section 958.10, Florida Statutes (1979), and its apparent conflict with sections 958.05(2) and 958.14. Pursuant to section 958.05(2) the circuit court has jurisdiction to impose a maximum sen…
-
Domingo Antonio Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (defendant who pled guilty in exchange for a sentence of three years imprisonment and four years probation “may not .accept and enjoy a probation, then challenge it as illegal after violating its terms”); Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297, 298-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Defendant who should have been sentenced as a youthful offender but was placed on probation “waived his right to question the legality of a probation which he has enjoyed and violated.”), pet. for review denied, 418 So. 2…
-
Bashlor v. State, 586 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ant and to which he agreed, may not be challenged after the defendant has accepted the benefits flowing from the plea, but has failed to carry out the conditions imposed on him. Witchard v. State, 459 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) and Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), see also Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Clem v. State, 462 S…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1981)
- Shearund Duron King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Greene v. State, 398 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Brandle v. State, 406 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Young v. John F. Kennedy Mem'l Hosp., 406 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)