FRED LORENZO BROOKS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that circuit courts have jurisdiction to revoke the community control status of youthful offenders and may re-sentence them upon revocation. The court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding whether the Parole and Probation Commission or the trial court had primary authority over youthful offender community control violations.
The court answered both certified questions in the affirmative: circuit courts have jurisdiction to revoke youthful offender community control status, and upon revocation, may re-sentence the defendant in accordance with applicable statutory provisions.
[1] A circuit court retains jurisdiction to revoke the community control status of a person sentenced as a youthful offender.
[2] Upon revocation of a youthful offender's community control status, the circuit court may sentence the defendant as if community control had never been imposed.
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“it is the trial court which initially evaluated the youthful offender and imposed sentence designating community control status, which has the power to continue review of the offender and evaluate alleged violations of supervision”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts retain jurisdiction over youthful offender community control matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1979, Brooks was adjudicated guilty of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced as a youthful offender to six years each (four years imprisonment …
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 Jurisdiction To Revoke Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We have for consideration the following questions certified to us in Brooks v. State, 461 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), as being of great public importance:
1. When a person is sentenced as a youthful offender pursuant to chapter 958.05(2), Florida Statutes (1979), does the circuit court have jurisdiction to revoke the community control status of that person?
2. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the positive, may the circuit court, upon revocation of a youthful offender’s community control program status, treat the defendant as though it had never placed him in community control and sentence him in accordance with section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes?
We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer both questions in the affirmative.
In 1979, petitioner was adjudicated guilty of two counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced as a youthful offender pursuant to chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1979), on each count to six years; four years imprisonment (of which one year was to be mandatory) and two years in a community control program. The sentences were to run consecutively.
Evidently petitioner was given an early release from his sentence as in September 1983, he was arrested and charged with armed robbery, grand auto theft and abduction.1 At the probation revocation hearing in February 1984, petitioner argued that the Parole and Probation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over him, pursuant to section 958.10.2 The circuit court rejected petitioner’s argument and found that it had jurisdiction pursuant to sections 958.14 and 948.06(1). The circuit court found a violation of probation and sentenced petitioner to two years on each count. On appeal, the First District affirmed and certified the questions now before us.
The other district courts of appeal have adopted the position of the First District sub judice and approved by us today. Moore v. State, 463 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Spurlock v. State, 449 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985). We agree with the district court in Moore “that the more specific provisions of section 998.14, Florida Statutes (1983) govern over the more general provision of section 958.10, Florida Statutes (1983).” 463 So. 2d at 407. The statutes in question, when read in pari materia indicate that it is the trial court which initially evaluated the youthful offender and imposed sentence designating community control status, which has the power to continue review of the offender and evaluate alleged violations of supervision. This outcome is also consistent with the legislature’s most recent statement of its intent in chapter 85-288, section 20, Laws of Florida, amending chapter 958 and repealing section 958.-10, by unequivocally providing for circuit court jurisdiction in these cases. Lowry v. Parole and Probation Commission, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1985) (considering subsequent legislation proper in arriving at proper interpretation of prior statute, citing to Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 59 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1952)).
We approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald and SHAW, JJ., concur. . The arrest resulted in convictions for armed robbery and abduction. State v. Brooks, No. 83-8588-CF, per curiam affirmed, Brooks v. State, 461 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
. Petitioner relied upon Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The Fourth District, on rehearing, reversed its original opinion, thus reaching the same conclusion as we do today. Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Poore v. State, 503 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), based on express and direct conflict with Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Hill v. State, 486 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lynch v. State, 491 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); and Crosby v. State, 487 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have accepted jurisd…
-
Franklin v. State, 526 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ntenced as a youthful offender may, upon violation of a term of probation or community control, be re-sentenced in accordance with section 948.-06(1), Florida Statutes, without reference to the youthful offender provisions. See also Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Hill v. State, 486 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Crosby v. State, 487 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Although the Youthful Offender Act was amended in 1985 to provide that no youthful offender shall be committed to the department upon…
-
State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)…ful offender who violated community control, other than to note, by reference to section 948.06(1), that upon revocation of community control, a trial court could impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed.5 See also Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985). In 1985, the statute was amended to include language which indicated that the maximum sanction for a youthful offender who violated community control/probation was six years or the maximum term authorized for the offense for which he or…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Fla., 59 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1952)
- Lowry v. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1985)
- 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)
- Brooks v. State, 461 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Spurlock v. State, 449 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Brooks v. State, 461 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Kurtis Smith v. State, 461 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)