THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVIS HICKS, 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 State appealed a trial court's decision to resentence Travis Hicks as a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to substantive criminal charges. The court reversed, holding that the youthful offender sentencing restriction applies only to violations of probation or community control, not to new substantive crimes charged by information.
A youthful offender previously classified as such cannot be resentenced as a youthful offender for new substantive crimes charged by information. The youthful offender resentencing provision applies only to violations of community control or probation, not to separate substantive criminal offenses.
[1] A defendant may be classified as a youthful offender only if they have not previously been classified as such.
[2] A youthful offender resentenced after a violation of community control or probation is entitled to be resentenced as a youthful offender.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An individual may be classified as a youthful offender under the Florida Youthful Offender Act, chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1987), only if he "has not previously been classified as a youthful offender."”
Establishes the statutory bar to multiple youthful offender classifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1987, Hicks pleaded guilty to robbery and was classified as a youthful offender with a sentence of two years community control. In November 1…
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 Florida Youthful Offender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
In March 1987, Travis Hicks pled guilty to robbery. § 812.13, Fla.Stat. (1985). The trial court adjudicated Hicks as an adult, categorized him as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1987), and sentenced him to two years of community control. In November 1987, the state charged Hicks by information with third degree grand theft, resisting an officer without violence, and obstructing justice. In February 1988, the state charged Hicks by information with aggravated battery. The state did not file an affidavit of violation of community control. Hicks pled guilty to both the November 1987 and the February 1988 charges on the condition that he would be sentenced as a youthful offender. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court labored under the misapprehension that Hicks had been charged with violating his community control by the commission of the substantive crimes. Accordingly, the trial court resentenced Hicks as a youthful offender. The state filed this appeal. We reverse.
An individual may be classified as a youthful offender under the Florida Youthful Offender Act, chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1987), only if he “has not previously been classified as a youthful offender.” § 958.04(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). A youthful offender who is resentenced after violation of community control or probation is entitled to be resentenced as a youthful offender. § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1987). Dixon v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)1; Watson v. State, 528 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This sentencing restriction does not apply to sentences imposed on subsequent convictions for crimes charged, not as probation or community control violations, but as substantive crimes charged by informations. See § 958.04(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Although Hicks had been classified previously as a youthful offender, he was not charged with violating his community control; instead, he was charged with separate substantive criminal offenses. Under these circumstances, the trial court erred in classifying him as a youthful offender. We therefore vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. At that time, Hicks shall be permitted to withdraw his plea because it was premised upon his classification as a youthful offender. See State v. Hopkins, 520 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wade v. State, 488 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded.
. In Dixon, this court certified conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Franklin v. State, 526 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (en banc). The Florida Supreme Court has answered the certified question posed by Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1989); however, the supreme court's holding has no effect on the issue on which this court certified conflict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…8.04”). If the defendant is convicted of and sentenced for a new offense in a subsequent case, the defendant is not entitled to a youthful offender sentence in that new case. Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Rogers, where youthful offender probation was violated based on allegations that the defendant committed a new offense, we held that “if the defendant is not charged by information with the new, substantive offense, but…
-
Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…n prison, with the sen-fences to run concurrently. Boynton now asserts that he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender on the two substantive cases, following his original youthful offender sentencing. He is incorrect.. In State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) we held that a defendant previously classified as a youthful offender who is subsequently charged with substantive offenses, and not with a mere violation of probation/community control, is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthf…
-
Meeks v. State, 754 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…e act that constitutes a violation becomes a substantive one when it involves the commission of a separate criminal offense. This definition appears to be the one applied by our sister court, although in a factually dissimilar case. State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Hicks, the Third District, when reviewing a defendant’s original sentence for a separate criminal offense committed after his sentencing as a youthful offender, stated: Although Hicks had been classified previously as a youth…
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
- Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1989)
- Franklin v. State, 526 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Watson v. State, 528 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Calhoun v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Wade v. State, 488 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- State v. Orion Hopkins, 520 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)