SYLVESTER MANN WARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Sylvester Mann Warren, originally sentenced as a youthful offender, appeals his revocation of community control and resentencing to twenty years imprisonment. The appellate court reverses and remands, finding that the final judgment incorrectly stated he violated all eight probation conditions when he was found guilty of only three, the resentencing exceeded statutory limits under the Youthful Offender Act, and he was improperly denied credit for time served.
The appellate court held that the final judgment must be vacated and the case remanded because: (1) the judgment contained a material factual error regarding the number of violations found; (2) the twenty-year sentence violated the Youthful Offender Act requirement that resentencing not exceed six years or the maximum sentence for the original offense, whichever is less; and (3) the trial court failed to properly credit time served in state prison.
[1] A final judgment revoking community control must accurately reflect the specific violations of supervision for which the defendant was found guilty.
[2] A defendant originally sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, upon violation of community control, cannot be resentenced to a period longer than six years or the maxi…
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 intelligence“the sentence entered is in violation of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act which states that upon a violation of community control, a defendant originally sentenced under that act cannot be resentenced for such violation to a period longer than six years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was originally found guilty, whichever is less”
Establishes the statutory cap on resentencing for youthful offenders who violate community control, which the twenty-year sentence violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarren was originally convicted of two counts of false imprisonment and two counts of sexual battery and sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act to …
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 Technical Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*430] PER CURIAM.
Defendant, originally sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1987), appeals the final judgment and sentence entered upon his violation of probation. We reverse.
Defendant was found guilty of two counts of false imprisonment and two counts of sexual battery. Sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, he was committed to the Department of Corrections for a six year term: four years imprisonment in a youthful offenders’ facility followed by two years of community control. While on community control after completing his prison term, he was charged with five technical violations of probation supervision as well as the substantive violations of loitering and prowling, strong arm robbery, and grand theft. As a result of his revocation hearing, defendant was found to have committed two technical violations and the substantive violation of strong arm robbery. Electing not to be sentenced under the guidelines, defendant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment with credit for 103 days of time served. In contradiction of the trial judge’s findings, the final order revoking community control stated that the defendant had violated all eight conditions of supervision alleged. He now appeals.
Defendant raises three points which together merit reversal of the final judgment and sentence. First, defendant contends, and we agree, that the final'judgment must be vacated because it erroneously states that he was found guilty of all eight probation violations alleged when, in reality, he was found guilty only of three: two technical violations and the substantive violation of strong arm robbery.
Second, as defendant contends, the sentence entered is in violation of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act which states that upon a violation of community control, a defendant originally sentenced under that act cannot be resentenced for such violation to a period longer than six years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was originally found guilty, whichever is less. Dixon v. State, Case No. 87-1795, (Fla. 3d DCA April 18,1989); Hall v. State, 536 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Miles v. State, 536 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Watson v. State, 528 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Consequently, the sentence must be vacated on this ground.
Third, and finally, defendant contends, and the state concedes, that defendant was denied credit for time served in state prison prior to his release on community control. § 958.14 Fla.Stat. (1987). Thus, upon remand, it will be incumbent upon the trial court to calculate properly the amount of credit due defendant for time served.
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and sentence and remand for entry of a corrected written order and for resentencing within the terms of the Youthful Offender Act.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)…DCA 1989); Haynes v. State, 545 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dixon v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (on rehearing), review granted, No. 74,608 (Fla. Dec. 26, 1989);2 Boffo v. State, 543 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Warren v. State, 542 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review granted, No. 74,212 (Fla. Oct. 9, 1989); Miles v. State, 536 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review granted, 544 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1989);3 Hall v. State, 536 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Reams v. State, 528 So. 2d 558 (Fla.…
-
Cole v. State, 550 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
-
Hunnicutt v. State, 549 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ad violated certain conditions,1 and sentenced him to a term of nine years imprisonment, with credit for time served. This court has held in Dixon v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Letts, Assoc. J., dissenting in part); Warren v. State, 542 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) Miles v. State, 536 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); and Hall v. State, 536 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) that it is error for the trial court upon revocation of probation or community control to sentence a defendant who, when the o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watson v. State, 528 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Miles v. State, 536 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Steinfeld, 536 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hall v. State, 536 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)