LEKISHA R. BLACKMON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises two points on appeal: (1) Whether the trial court complied with section 39.059, Florida Statutes, in sentencing appellant as an adult, and (2) whether the trial court improperly determined that it was required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence although it affirmatively appears from the record that appellant may qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.021, Florida Statutes.
We find no merit as to issue I. See Troutman v. State, 603 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We do find, however, when the record affirmatively reflects that appellant may qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.021, Florida Statutes, and the trial court affirmatively states on the record that it feels that the mandatory minimum sentence may be too harsh in light of appellant’s age, but that it has no sentencing discretion, that the trial court should have the opportunity to consider whether it wishes to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 958.04, Florida Statutes. See Ellis v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
ZEHMER, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eumir Holmes v. State, 638 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…s to whether the lower court would have imposed a youthful offender sentence had the court been aware that this option was available. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. See, Blackmon v. State, 616 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Notwithstanding our remand, we emphasize that the lower court is under no obligation to sentence appellant under the Youthful Offender Act unless the lower court believes such a sentence would be appropriate. We AFFIRM in part…
-
Vander Wyden v. State, 958 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…(Fla.2002). In any event, on the merits, neither an abuse of the trial court’s discretionary decision not to downward depart nor a failure to consider the Youthful Offender Act as an available sentencing option, as was the case in Blackmon v. State, 616 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), has [*541] been demonstrated. The sentence under review is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Troutman v. State, 603 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)