NATHANIEL BELL, 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.
Bell appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief seeking classification as a youthful offender. The court affirms, holding that the 1980 amendment to Florida's youthful offender statute changed the classification from mandatory to discretionary, giving trial courts authority to consider specified criteria rather than obligate classification.
The trial court has discretion to classify or not classify a defendant as a youthful offender. The 1980 amendment to Section 958.04(2), effective October 1, 1980, eliminated the mandatory classification requirement established in prior case law and instead requires courts only to consider specified criteria in making the determination.
[1] A defendant is not automatically classified as a youthful offender if the statutory prerequisites are met; the court must consider enumerated criteria in making that dete…
[2] Amendments to Florida Statute Section 958.04(2) effective October 1, 1980, changed the mandatory classification of a defendant as a youthful offender to a discretionary d…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The amended statute, not under consideration in Goodson, accordingly controls the instant case since the offense occurred on February 27, 1981; the plea on June 3,1981, and sentencing on June 12, 1981.”
Establishes that the 1980 amendment to the youthful offender statute applies to Bell's case because his offense postdated the amendment's effective date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell committed a crime on February 27, 1981, entered a plea on June 3, 1981, and was sentenced on June 12, 1981. Bell was under 21 years old at the ti…
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
PER CURIAM.
Bell appeals the lower court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm. Bell contends that he meets the criteria of a youthful offender because the crime for which he has been charged was committed before his 21st birthday and is not a life felony offense. He relies upon State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1981), which interpreted Section 958.04(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), as providing for mandatory classification of a defendant as a youthful offender if the statutory prerequisites set out in Section 958.04(1) are satisfied. We would be bound by the Goodson opinion if the legislature had not substantially amended Section 958.-04(2), effective October 1, 1980. See Ch. 80-321, § 2, Laws of Florida. The amended statute, not under consideration in Good-son, accordingly controls the instant case since the offense occurred on February 27, 1981; the plea on June 3,1981, and sentencing on June 12, 1981. Section 958.04(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), now provides in pertinent part:
(2) The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether to classify as a youthful offender a person who meets the requirements of subsection (1):
(a) The seriousness of the offense to the community and the protection of the community;
(b) Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner;
(c) Whether the offense was against persons or property;
(d) The sophistication and maturity of the defendant, as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living;
(e) The record and previous history of the defendant, ....
Unlike former subsection (2), which had required that the “person shall be classified a youthful offender if such person meets the criteria of subsection (1) and such person” meets other requirements, those provisions are no longer extant and the statute now mandates a court only to consider certain criteria in aiding its determination of whether to classify a defendant as a youthful offender — not as an adult — once it has been determined that such person meets the requirements of subsection (1). If the court declines to classify the person as a youthful offender, then it cannot be said that the court abuses its discretion in not taking into account such criteria, which are applicable, as stated, only to one’s classification as a youthful offender. We therefore conclude that the Goodson interpretation has no further relevancy to an offense which occurred after the effective date of the amended statute.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gibron, 478 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…rson v. State, 408 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (defendant sentenced under Youthful Offender Act cannot be given minimum mandatory sentence for possession of firearm). Sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act is discretionary. See Bell v. State, 429 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). While it may be said that defendant meets the threshold requirements of section 958.-04(1) for classification as a youthful offender, the fact remains the court made no such finding. There is no statement that defendant was bein…
-
Criston Olympia McKINNEY v. State, 27 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…]he lower court is under no obligation to sentence [a defendant] under the Youthful Offender Act unless the lower court believes such a sentence would be appropriate.” Holmes v. State, 638 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Bell v. State, 429 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). “[A]pplieation of the Youthful Offender Act to any particular defendant is discretionary with the trial judge who is in the best position to determine whether sentencing under the act is the most desirable treatment for tha…
-
State v. Upshaw, 469 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…c), Fla.Stat. (1981). Accordingly, the defendant was eligible to be sentenced pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act and the state has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in so sentencing the defendant. See Bell v. State, 429 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)