WILLIE FRANK COBB
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's decision regarding the revocation of Willie Frank Cobb's probation. The court affirmed the revocation but reversed the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to an error in determining dangerousness.
The court held that the trial court did not err in revoking probation because Cobb did not meet all four conditions required by section 948.06(2)(f)1. However, the court held that the trial court did err in sentencing Cobb to state prison without a jury finding of dangerousness, as required by section 775.082(10).
[1] To invoke the limitations of section 948.06(2)(f)1, Florida Statutes, a probationer must satisfy all four statutory conditions; meeting only three conditions does not res…
[2] When imposing a sentence to state prison for probation violation and the criminal punishment code total is less than twenty-two points, a jury must make a finding of dang…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We affirm because Cobb did not satisfy all four conditions required under the statute.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the probation revocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Frank Cobb challenged the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentence. He argued that the trial court was limited in its sentencing …
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 Sentencing Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie Frank Cobb challenges the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentence of thirty-six months in state prison. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
First, Cobb argues section 948.06(2)(f)1., Florida Statutes (2019), limited the trial court to modifying or continuing his probation, with a maximum possible sentence of ninety days in jail, because Cobb met three of the statutory conditions. We affirm because Cobb did not satisfy all four conditions required under the statute. See Owens v. State, 303 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that whether section 948.06(2), Florida Statutes, applies to a defendant who committed an offense before the statute was amended, when imposing sentence for a violation of probation, a trial court is limited under subsection 948.06(2)(f)1. to modifying or continuing probation or imposing a sentence of up to ninety days in county jail only when a defendant “meet[s] all four conditions of subsection 948.06(2)(f)1.”).
Second, Cobb argues the trial court erred in sentencing him to state prison when his criminal punishment code total was less than twenty-two points and the jury did not make a finding of dangerousness under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes. The State concedes error under Gaymon v. State, 288 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2020), and we agree. We reverse and remand for resentencing. On remand, if the State still seeks a finding of dangerousness under section 775.082(10), the trial court is directed to empanel a jury to make the determination of dangerousness.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dennis v. State, 303 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Bowling v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)