TIMOTHY LEON HILL, 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 court held that upon revocation of community control for a youthful offender, the sentencing court is not limited to a four-year term and may impose any sentence originally permissible.
[1] Upon revocation of community control for a youthful offender sentenced under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes, the sentencing court may impose any sentence that could have b…
[2] A violation of probation or community control subjects a youthful offender to the provisions of section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's community control was revoked, and the trial court imposed a five-year sentence. Appellant argued the sentence was limited to four years u…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
We grant appellee’s Motion for Rehearing, vacate our opinion filed February 6, 1986, and affirm the trial court’s sentence of five years incarceration which the court imposed after revoking the appellant’s community control in October, 1984, the appellant having earlier received a split sentence in June, 1980, as a youthful offender under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes.
The Florida Supreme Court in Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985), has settled the question of whether the sentencing court, upon revocation of community control under Chapter 958, is limited to a term of incarceration of four years as held by earlier appellate court decisions. See Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
The Brooks decision has, we believe, been properly interpreted as authorizing, upon revocation, resentencing by imposition of any sentence which the trial court could have originally imposed without regard to the youthful offender act. See Johnson v. State, 482 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).1
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur. . Inasmuch as the appellant was resentenced in 1984, we do not address the amended version of Section 958.14, as amended by Chapter 85-288, Section 24, Laws of Florida, particularly since this appellant was resentenced to not longer than six years. Section 958.14, as amended in 1985, is reproduced as follows, the underlined portions constituting the language added by Chapter 85-288, supra:
958.14 Violation of probation or community control program. — A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.-06(1); provided that no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for such violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
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 jurisdiction to clarify the law governing split s…
-
Franklin v. State, 526 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…olation 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 a violation of probation for a period long…
-
Watson v. State, 528 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…at the time he was resentenced after violating his community control, and that under the provisions of the amended law he could be resentenced to a maximum of six years with credit for time served while incarcerated. The state, citing Hill v. State, 486 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and a number of other cases involving pre-1985 resentencings of youthful offenders after violation of probation or community control, argued that even under the amended act the court still had the discretion to resentence a youth…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1985)
- Ellis v. State, 436 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Johnson v. State, 482 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Hill v. State, 471 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)