TIMOTHY LEE CROSBY, 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.
The trial court erred by not separately crediting the defendant for time already served when revoking probation and resentencing under the Youthful Offender Act.
The defendant was released to community control after serving time in prison. Upon revocation of probation, the trial court imposed a new sentence wit…
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
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Crosby appeals the sentence imposed following the trial court’s revocation of his probation in the community control program. See sections 958.14 and 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court sentenced Crosby to eighteen months in prison; Crosby complains that the sentence did not give him full credit for the two years and 350 days he served in prison prior to his having been released to community control. We reverse.
It is suggested by the State, and appears probable on the face of the record, that the trial court imposed a lesser term of incarceration than the four-year maximum allowed by section 958.05(2), Florida Statutes (1983), in order to give Crosby credit for the time already served. This is improper. In revoking Crosby’s probation in the community control program, the trial court was required to sentence Crosby in accordance with the Youthful Offender Act, since he was initially sentenced as a youthful offender, and to set forth separately on the sentencing documents the appropriate credit for the time Crosby has already served. Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 718, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2077, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 665 (1969).
Consequently, the sentence is VACATED and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for resentencing. Although Crosby may be sentenced up to a maximum of six years, four years to be served by imprisonment and two years in a community control program, the new sentence shall specifically credit Crosby with all time which he has served in connection with the subject charge. James v. State, 443 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); but cf. Kirkman v. Wainwright, 465 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and Harrison v. Wainwright, 408 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982).
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1992)…the offense involved without limitation to the four 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. Stat…
-
Arnette v. State, 566 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…thful Offender Act (now section 958.04(2)) limited incarceration to a four year maximum period and that limitation applied to sentencing after a revocation of probation. See 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. Stat…1 / 2
-
Walker v. State, 506 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978); State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1976). Although the State argues that this Court, if it agrees with appellant, should vacate the sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing under Crosby v. State, 475 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), we find the circumstances in Crosby to be distinguishable. In Crosby, it appeared probable on the face of the record that the court imposed a lesser term of incarceration in order to give the defendant credit for the time alread…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- James v. State, 443 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Kirkman v. Louie L. Wainwright, 465 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Harrison v. Louie L. Wainwright, 408 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)