THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIO BARBARO LEZCANO, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1991-10-01
No. 91-1070
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON, and LEVY, JJ.
586 So. 2d 1287 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a prior placement in a youthful offender facility by the Department of Corrections, without a judicial adjudication or sentence as a youthful offender, does not preclude a court from subsequently sentencing the individual as a youthful offender.


Headnotes

[1] A prior placement in a youthful offender facility by the Department of Corrections does not preclude a court from adjudicating and sentencing a defendant as a youthful of…

[2] The Youthful Offender Act distinguishes between a court's power to adjudicate and sentence a defendant as a youthful offender and the Department of Corrections' power to…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Lezcano, charged with multiple felonies, agreed to plead nolo contendere under a youthful offender program. The state objected, arguing Lezcano had pr…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order sentencing Lezcano as a youthful offender. We affirm.

Lezcano, a nineteen-year-old, was charged with third-degree grand theft, possession of burglary tools, and robbery. He agreed to plead nolo contendere under a youthful offender program pursuant to section 958.04(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989).1

The state objected to the plea at the sentencing hearing, arguing that Lezcano had previously been treated as a youthful offender and was, therefore, precluded from receiving this treatment a second time. See § 958.04(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989). The defense argued that Lezcano had not previously been sentenced as a youthful offender but, instead, had merely been placed in a youthful offender facility by the Department of Corrections.

The trial court accepted Lezcano’s plea and adjudicated him guilty as a youthful offender and sentenced him to four years in a youthful offender facility and two years community control.2 During sentencing the court stated that “the mere fact he [Lezeano] entered a plea of guilty on a prior case where the Department of Corrections made the determination to send the defendant to a youthful offender facility ... does not limit the court from now determining that this defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender....” We agree.

The Youthful Offender Act is intended “to improve the chances of correction and successful return to the community of youthful offenders sentenced to imprisonment by providing them with vocational, educational, counseling, or public service opportunities and by preventing their association with older and more experienced criminals during the term of their confinement.” § 958.021, Fla.Stat. (1989). It does so by providing a sentencing alternative “that is more stringent than the juvenile system and less harsh than the adult system.” Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla.1988).

The Act states that the courts have the power to “adjudicate” and “sentence” individuals as youthful offenders, §§ 958.03(5), 958.04(1), 958.07, 958.11(2), 958.13, Fla.Stat. (1989), while the Department of Corrections can “classify” individuals as youthful offenders. Id. The consequences of an adjudication differ from that of a departmental classification. When a court adjudicates an individual as a youthful offender, he must be sentenced under the provisions of section 958.04(2). This affects not only how an individual is treated by the Department of Corrections, see 958.04(4) et seq., but also the length of custody. Adjudicated youthful offenders also receive certain peripheral benefits, such as the sealing of their criminal records. § 958.13, Fla.Stat. (1989). Departmental “classification” occurs after judicial sentencing. The Department of Corrections merely determines what programs and facilities an individual can be assigned to. See § 958.11(6), Fla.Stat. (1989).

In Lezeano’s previous conviction, he was not adjudicated or sentenced as a youthful offender. Lezeano never received the “benefits” of youthful offender classification. Upon sentencing Lezeano was placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections which merely placed him into a youthful offender facility.

In recent years, due largely to the passage of sentencing guidelines, we have witnessed the gradual erosion of judicial discretion in sentencing matters. Therefore, when this limited discretion is properly exercised, we should not curtail it.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court acted in accordance with section 958.04 when adjudicating and sentencing Lezeano as a youthful offender. Our disposition of this issue renders the remaining issues on appeal moot.

Affirmed.

. The statute provides:

958.04 Judicial disposition of youthful offenders

1) The court may sentence as a youthful offender any person:

(a) Who is at least 18 years of age or who has been transferred for prosecution to the criminal division of the circuit court pursuant to chapter 39;

(b) Who is found guilty of or who has tendered, and the court has accepted, a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to a crime which is, under the laws of this state, a felony if such crime was committed before the defendant’s 21st birthday; and (c)Who has not previously been classified as a youthful offender under the provisions of the act; however, no person who has been found guilty of a capital or life felony may be sentenced as a youthful offender under this act.

. Section 958.04(2) provides that:

In lieu of other criminal penalties authorized by law and notwithstanding any imposition of consecutive sentences, the court shall dispose of the criminal case as follows:
(c) The court may impose a split sentence whereby the youthful offender is to be placed on probation or community control upon completion of any specified period of incarceration; however, if the incarceration period is to be served in a department facility other than a probation and restitution center or community residential facility, such period shall be for not less than 1 year or more than 4 years. The period of probation or community control shall commence immediately upon the release of the youthful offender from incarceration. The period of incarceration imposed or served and the period of probation or community control, when added together, shall not exceed 6 years.

This limitation on the time period for confinement is one of the "primary benefits" of being sentenced as a youthful offender. Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla.1988).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lubins Louissaint v. State, 727 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …, the Fifth District Court held that a mixed youthful offender and adult sentencing scheme is illegal. “When a court adjudicates an individual as a youthful offender, he must be sentenced under the provisions of section 958.04(2).” State v. Lezcano, 586 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “[O]nce a defendant has been classified a youthful offender, the court must adhere to the six-year cap established by the legislature.” Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d at 70-1. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order and…
  • Russell v. State, 687 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Lezcano, 586 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). COBB, SHARP, W„ and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw