JUAN M. HERNANDEZ, JR., 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.
A youthful offender's sentence imposed after a violation of community control, which exceeds the guidelines, must be supported by written reasons.
Juan M. Hernandez, Jr., a youthful offender, violated community control after being sentenced for discharging a firearm from a vehicle and other felon…
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Juan M. Hernandez, Jr., appeals his sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. We reverse and remand for resentencing because the trial court incorrectly assumed that a youthful offender could receive a 6-year sentence following a violation of community control without regard to the guidelines scoresheet.
In 1992, the state charged Mr. Hernandez with discharging a firearm from a vehicle, a second-degree felony, and with three third-degree felonies. He pleaded guilty and was placed on community control as a youthful offender. Thereafter, he violated community control and was resentenced in April 1993. Including a one-cell bump for the violation of community control, the maximum permitted guidelines sentence was 3½ years’ incarceration. The trial court sentenced Mr. Hernandez to 6 years’ incarceration for the second-degree felony and to concurrent 5-year sentences for the third-degree felonies. The trial court provided no reason for the departure, believing that a youthful offender could be sentenced to 6 years’ incarceration without regard to the sentencing guidelines.
We conclude that section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1991), which explains the sentencing options available when a youthful offender violates community control or probation, must be read in conjunction with section 958.04(3), which provides that a sentence greater than permitted under the guidelines must be supported by written reasons. A sentence imposed on violation of community control that is a departure from the guidelines must be supported by written reasons. State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989). Because the trial court did not realize that Mr. Hernandez’s sentence was a departure from the guidelines, it is not restricted to resentence within the guidelines on remand. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d at 1108.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fields v. State, 712 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…erious criminal activity.” Furthermore, the designation of Fields as a youthful offender will not support departure from the guidelines without valid written rea [*414] sons. See Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Hernandez v. State, 672 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because the trial judge imposed an invalid departure sentence, the new sentence must be within the guidelines. If the court imposes another youthful offender sentence, the term must be within the statutory maximum for each offen…
-
Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…tence, the sentence must be reversed. Furthermore, when, as in this case, a trial court is not aware that a departure sentence is being imposed, on remand the court shall have a fresh opportunity to reimpose a departure sentence. Hernandez v. State, 672 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Reed v. State, 681 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 677 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded for resentencing. PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Demond Lamont Alexander v. State, 744 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…g guidelines did not apply to sentencing as a youthful offender and that the six-year sentence imposed was not a departure sentence. Therefore, consistent with our holdings in Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) and Hernandez v. State, 672 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the same six-year sentence, provided written reasons for departure are set forth. See Fields v. State, 712 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)