KENNETH WILLIAM LANE, 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.
Kenneth Lane appeals his sentence imposed under the Youthful Offender Act. Although the trial court properly had jurisdiction to revoke his community control and impose imprisonment for violations, the court exceeded the statutory maximum sentence of six years by imposing seven years per charge.
The trial court properly had authority to revoke community control and impose imprisonment for violations of supervision terms. However, the court exceeded the maximum sentence allowable under the Youthful Offender Act. The maximum permissible sentence is six years (four years in confinement and two in community control), and the seven-year sentences imposed for each charge violated this statutory limit.
[1] A youthful offender sentenced to community control may be subject to sanctions, including imprisonment, for violating the terms of supervision.
[2] A violation of community control under the Youthful Offender Act may be sanctioned by revocation of the less onerous community control and imposition of imprisonment.
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“Spurlock v. State, 449 So.2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. den., 466 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985) and Bradley v. State, 462 So.2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) authorize such a procedure and sanction for violators.”
Establishes that courts have authority to revoke community control and impose imprisonment for youthful offender supervision violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLane was sentenced as a youthful offender under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes, with a portion of his sentence served under community control. During a…
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 Sentencing Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence. Appellant was determined by the trial court to be a proper candidate for sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act, Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1981).
He was sentenced under that act and for a portion of his sentence he was placed in community control. During this two year period he violated some terms of his supervision program. When he was brought before the court on charges of violation he challenged the court’s authority to exercise its jurisdiction over him and revoke his less onerous community control and put him in prison. Spurlock v. State, 449 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. den., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985) and Bradley v. State, 462 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) authorize such a procedure and sanction for violators. See also Hart v. State, 463 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Moore v. State, 463 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Crosby v. State, 462 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (on motion for rehearing); Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (on motion for rehearing); Smith v. State, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The single case not in accord with the cited cases is Lollis v. State, 449 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), upon which appellant relies., Lollis is distinct from the instant case and the cited cases because the appellant in Lollis violated the conditions of community control prior to October 1, 1983.1
Appellant is entitled to relief, however, because the maximum sentence he can receive is six years, four in confinement and two in community control, and the trial court exceeded that by giving him seven years for each charge. The sentences are reversed and this cause is remanded for sentencing in accordance with the statute not to exceed six years, with credit for time served in confinement and in community control. Although he can receive six years for each charge, they must be concurrent in order to comply with the intention of the Youthful Offender Act.
Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, and COWART, JJ., concur. . Chapter 83-131, § 20, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1983, amended § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. to encompass community control violations in addition to probation violations.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1992)…year provision of the Youthful Offender Act (section 958.04(2)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes), contrary to the holdings in Brown v. State, 492 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Timothy Crosby v. State, 475 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lane v. State, 470 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hart v. State, 463 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); James Crosby (II) v. State, 462 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied…
-
Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988)…BARKETT, Justice. We review Allen v. State, 515 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), based on certified conflict with Lane v. State, 470 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The issue presented is whether a youth sentenced for multiple felonies under the Youthful Offender Act may be sentenced consecutively so that his total commitment exceeds the…
-
Johnson v. State, 482 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…oks, of course, supersedes prior district court decisions which either hold or imply that, upon revocation of his community control, a youthful offender’s term of incarceration is limited by section 958.05(2) to four years. See, e.g., Lane v. State, 470 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 443 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1984); Brandle v. State, 406 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Spurlock v. State, 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Spurlock v. State, 449 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Crosby v. State, 462 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lollis v. State, 449 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hezekiah Smith v. State, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Clement Moore v. State, 463 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Bradley v. State, 462 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)