E.W., A MINOR, 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.
This case addresses whether a youthful offender sentence, imposed before the legislative effective date of revised sentencing guidelines, constituted an impermissible departure from those guidelines. The court held that the sentence was not a departure because the revised guidelines were not yet effective and a committee note allowed for youthful offender sentences to be outside the guidelines.
No, the trial court did not err. The revised sentencing guidelines were not effective at the time of sentencing, and a committee note provided that youthful offender sentences were not required to conform to the guidelines.
[1] Sentences imposed under the Youthful Offender Act are not required to conform to sentencing guidelines.
[2] A revision to a rule of criminal procedure that changes substantive law is effective upon legislative approval, not upon the date of the court's revision.
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“He pleaded nolo contendere to the charges. The recommended guidelines sentence was 12 to 30 months of incarceration. He was sentenced as a youthful offender under Section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1983), to four years of imprisonment, to be followed by two years of community control.”
Establishes the facts of the sentence imposed and the appellant's argument regarding guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a juvenile, pleaded nolo contendere to multiple felony charges. He was sentenced as a youthful offender to four years imprisonment foll…
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
PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was charged by separate informations with four counts of burglary of a structure, three counts of grand theft, and three counts of burglary of a conveyance. He pleaded nolo conten-dere to the charges. The recommended guidelines sentence was 12 to 30 months of incarceration. He was sentenced as a youthful offender under Section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1983), to four years of imprisonment, to be followed by two years of community control. On this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in deviating from the recommended guidelines sentence when no reasons for the departure were given.
The basis for appellant’s argument is his contention that youthful offender sentences were under the established guidelines on June 13, 1984, when he was sentenced. We hold that the effective date of the revised guidelines was July 1, 1984, as specified by the Legislature. At the time of sentencing, the committee note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll) provided that sentences under the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act need not conform to the guidelines. The committee note was a part of the rule. McGrath v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Appellant’s argument that the effective date of the change was May 8,1984, when the Supreme Court of Florida revised the rule and deleted the above provision of the committee note, is incorrect because the revision was one that changed the substantive law and thus was properly effective upon legislative approval. Cf., Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1975); Vaught v. State, 410 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1982). The original committee note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll) was properly applied. A sentence coming under the Youthful Offender Act was a nonguidelines sentence and not a departure. See Sweat v. State, 454 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Dorman v. State, 457 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
It should be noted that, contrary to the indication of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, the appellant is entitled to parole eligibility.
Affirmed.
MILLS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 549 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1989)…lorida Statutes. [*176] He claims that when this law was passed in 1985, youthful offenders were not subject to guidelines sentencing. We disagree. Youthful offenders have been subject to guidelines sentencing since July 1, 1984. See E. W. v. State, 469 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1st DCA 1985). We note that when the legislature amended chapter 921 in 1983 to exclude capital felonies from guidelines sentencing, it left unchanged, and has not since altered, the penalty provision for such crimes. This is a strong indicati…
-
Braddock v. State, 472 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…empt from the requirement of written clear and convincing reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines. The Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988—Sentencing Guidelines), 468 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1985); E.W. v. State, 469 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The state argues that Braddock’s failure to contemporaneously object to the sentencing error precludes appellate review, citing Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1984). Ford is inapplicable as it involved the failure to…
Authorities Cited
- Benyard v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1975)
- Vaught v. State, 410 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1982)
- Sweat v. State, 454 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Dorman v. State, 457 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- McGRATH v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)