JAMES CONNER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant's youthful offender classification was improper because he was over twenty-one when the crimes were committed, and the four-year probation sentence exceeded the two-year maximum permitted for youthful offenders; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing.
A defendant over twenty-one years of age at the time of the offense is ineligible for youthful offender classification, and the maximum probation sentence for a youthful offender is two years, not four years.
[1] A defendant must commit the crime before his twenty-first birthday to be eligible for youthful offender classification under Florida law.
[2] The maximum probation sentence permitted after youthful offender classification is two years community control, not four years.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConner was convicted of burglary and grand theft after a bench trial. The trial court imposed a four-year prison term for burglary, classified him as …
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Conner appeals from his convictions for burglary and grand theft, alleging the trial court erred in sentencing him to four years probation after finding he should be classified a youthful offender. We agree.
The state charged appellant with burglary and grand theft. The court found appellant guilty as charged after a bench trial. When pronouncing sentence for the burglary offense, the court imposed a four-year prison term and declared appellant to be a youthful offender. For the grand theft charge, the court placed appellant on four years probation to run consecutive to the prison term. The written judgment and sentence for both offenses determined appellant to be a youthful offender. Appellant correctly argues that while the four-year prison term is sanctioned under section 958.05(2), Florida Statutes (1981), the maximum probation sentence permitted after a youthful offender classification attaches is two years community control. § 958.05, Florida Statutes (1981). We hold the lower court erred in determining appellant to be a youthful offender and failing to sentence accordingly. We also note that appellant’s testimony indicates that appellant was over twenty-one years of age at the time the offenses were committed. In order to be eligible for youthful offender classification, the defendant’s crime must be committed before his twenty-first birthday. § 958.04, Florida Statutes (1981). Thus, appellant below was not eligible for the youthful offender classification.
The sentences imposed are VACATED, and the case REMANDED for resentencing.
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keast v. State, 472 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…DCA 1984), and Massaro v. State, 449 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).1 We agree with appellant that the community-control portion of the sentence should not have exceeded two years. Hudson v. State, 450 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Conner v. State, 422 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); § 958.05(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). Therefore, we remand to the trial court with directions to modify accordingly the community control portion of the sentence. Affirmed as modified. . This court's opinion in Milbry v. State, 469…