DREW DAVID KIRKMAN, 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.
Drew Kirkman appealed his convictions for robbery in three cases, challenging the denial of motions to suppress his confessions and his sentences under the Youthful Offender Act. The court affirmed his convictions but found his total sentence violated the statutory maximum and remanded for re-sentencing.
The court affirmed the convictions and found no error in denying the suppression motions. However, the court held that the total sentence of four years incarceration followed by six years community control exceeded the statutory maximum of four years incarceration followed by two years community control allowed under the Youthful Offender Act.
[1] A trial court does not err by denying a motion to suppress a confession if the confession was lawfully obtained.
[2] Sentences imposed under the Youthful Offender Act cannot exceed the statutory maximums for incarceration and community control.
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“Under section 958.04(2)(c), Florida Statute (1987), the maximum sentence that may be imposed is a period of incarceration for a term not exceeding four years followed by two years of community control.”
Establishes the statutory maximum sentence allowed under the Youthful Offender Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKirkman was convicted by jury of robbery with a deadly weapon in case 87-4073 and robbery with a weapon in case 87-4087. In case 87-4086, he pleaded n…
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 Youthful Offender Act Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him in connection with three felony cases. In two of the cases, the appellant claims that the trial court erred by not suppressing his confessions. In all of the cases, the appellant contends that he was improperly sentenced. We find no merit in his contention that two of the cases should be reversed because the court erred in denying the motions to suppress his confessions. We, accordingly, affirm all of the convictions. We agree, however, that the court erred in sentencing the appellant.
A jury found the appellant guilty of committing robbery with a deadly weapon in circuit court case number 87-4073. Another jury found him guilty of robbery with a weapon in circuit court case number 87-4087. In circuit court case number 87-4086, the appellant pled nolo contendere to a charge of robbery with a weapon and reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress his confession.
The appellant was sentenced pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act to serve four years imprisonment followed by two years community control on the robbery with a deadly weapon charge (87-4073). For each of the two convictions of robbery with a weapon, the appellant received sentences of two years community control. The sentence in case number 87-4086 was consecutive to the sentence in case number 87-4073 and the sentence in 87-4087 was consecutive to the sentence in case number 87-4086. The sentences resulted in a total sentence of four years incarceration followed by six years of community control. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We agree with the appellant’s contention that the sentences imposed upon him exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The trial court sentenced the appellant pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act, section 958.011 et seq., Florida Statutes (1987). Under section 958.04(2)(c), Florida Statute (1987), the maximum sentence that may be imposed is a period of incarceration for a term not exceeding four years followed by two years of community control. Walls v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). By imposing two consecutive periods of community control following the sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon, the appellant was sentenced to serve a total of ten years. This sentence exceeded the statutory maximum allowed in youthful offender sentencing. § 958.04(2)(c); Walls.
We, accordingly, affirm the appellant’s convictions but reverse and remand for re-sentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonhardt v. State, 779 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…by law. Pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act, the “period of incarceration imposed or served and the period of probation or community control, when added together, shall not exceed 6 years.” § 958.04(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). See Kirkman v. State, 598 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Leonhardt’s combined period of incarceration and community control is eight years. Accordingly, we affirm Leonhardt’s convictions but reverse and remand for resen-tencing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. T…
Authorities Cited
- Varela v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Walls v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)