SAMUEL WILLIAM DARDEN, 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.
Samuel Darden appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed upon violation of community control. The court reverses, holding that consecutive sentences totaling more than six years violate the Youthful Offender Act's six-year limitation and cannot be applied retroactively as an ex post facto violation.
The court held that consecutive sentences resulting in a total commitment of more than six years violate the Youthful Offender Act's statutory limitation and constitute illegal sentences. Because the amended statute extending the limitation was effective after Darden's 1988 offense, applying it retroactively would violate the ex post facto clauses of both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.
[1] A sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of a youthful offender's community control cannot exceed the six-year limitation established by the Youthful Offender A…
[2] Consecutive sentences imposed upon revocation of a youthful offender's community control cannot result in a total commitment exceeding the six-year limitation of the Yout…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“imposition of consecutive sentences resulting in a total commitment of more than six years would thwart the purpose of the Act”
Establishes the core principle that total commitment cannot exceed six years under the Youthful Offender Act, regardless of individual sentence lengths
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, Darden was adjudged a youthful offender and received two concurrent four-year prison sentences followed by two years of community control. In…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel William Darden appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse.
In 1988 Darden was adjudged a youthful offender and received two concurrent four-year prison sentences to be followed by two years of community control. Darden violated his community control in 1990, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each count, stacked consecutively to each other. Of the several grounds raised in Dar-den’s motion, only one merits discussion. Darden alleges that the consecutive two-year sentences imposed for his violation of community control constituted illegal sentences because they exceeded the six-year limitation placed on youthful offender sentences by section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1987). In denying Darden’s motion, the trial court determined that Darden’s sentence did not exceed the six-year limitation on youthful offender sentences, relying on Dixon v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA), approved, 558 So. 2d 1001 (Fla.1990).
We agree with the appellant that the sentences in question are illegal. In State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990), the court established the principle that there is a six-year limitation on the sentence of imprisonment which can be imposed on the revocation of a youthful offender’s probation or commu nity control. Under the holding in Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1988), the court rejected the argument that a youth sentenced for multiple felonies could have his sentences stacked consecutively where the total commitment exceeded the six-year limitation imposed by the Youthful Offender Act, stating “[hjence, imposition of consecutive sentences resulting in a total commitment of more than six years would thwart the purpose of the Act.” Id. at 70.
Section 958.14 of the Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), as amended, effective October 1, 1990, operates to subject a youthful offender to the provisions of section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes, beyond the six-year cap of community control or probation. However, application of the statute as amended after Darden’s offense in 1988, would constitute an impermissible ex post facto law under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. Reeves v. State, 605 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, Darden must be resen-teneed within the limitations of the Youthful Offender Act at the time of his original offense.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaiah Dunbar v. State, 664 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ed on count I only. Since Dunbar’s probation was revoked for technical violations, he can only be sentenced to a total of six years. State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1992); Young v. State, 654 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Darden v. State, 641 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). A youthful offender can be sentenced in excess of six years after revocation of probation if the violation was substantive. See § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1993); Reeves v. State, 605 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The consecutive sen…
-
Johnson v. State, 678 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…hful offender can be [*935] sentenced in excess of six years after revocation of probation if the violation was substantive rather than technical. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995); Dunbar v. State, 664 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Darden v. State, 641 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reeves v. State, 605 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We recalled the mandate and accepted the motion for rehearing as timely filed and received no response from the defendant. After a careful review of the record, we find the st…
-
Brown v. State, 687 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Darden v. State, 641 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978). PETERSON, C.J., and W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988)
- THE Florida BAR v. Hiram Lee Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)
- Calhoun v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Reeves v. State, 605 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Dixon, 558 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Miles, 558 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1990)