SHAMIEL SIMPKINS, 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.
Affirmed conviction for robbery with a firearm but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court may not have been aware of youthful-offender sentencing options available under Florida law.
A trial court must be made aware of youthful-offender sentencing options under Florida Statutes chapter 958 before imposing sentence on a young offender, and if the record is unclear whether the court would have imposed such a sentence had it known of the option, remand for resentencing is required.
[1] A trial court must be aware of youthful-offender sentencing options under Florida Statutes chapter 958 before imposing sentence, and remand is required when the record is…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShamiel Simpkins, age eighteen, was convicted by jury of robbery with a firearm committed in Duval County between October 21-22, 1995. The trial judge…
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 Remand For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Shamiel Simpkins (Simp-kins) of robbery with a firearm. Simpkins committed this crime between October 21 and 22, 1995, in Duval County. Simpkins then was eighteen.1 The trial judge, believing that the use of a firearm limited his youthful-offender sentencing options, sentenced Simpkins to prison for five and one-half years, followed by community control for one year. Simpkins appeals.
We affirm, without discussion, Simpkins’ conviction. We however reverse and remand for reconsideration of sentence in light of Holmes v. State, 638 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The record in the instant case, like that in Holmes, is unclear as to whether the trial court would have imposed a youthful-offender sentence had the court been aware that this option was available. The presen-tence investigation recommended that Simp-kins be sentenced pursuant to chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1995), as a youthful offender. The defense attorney urged youthful-offender sentencing because undisputedly Simpkins has no prior record, and because Simpkins profitably used his jail time to work on a G.E.D. The State thus correctly concedes that this case must be remanded for resentencing, without prejudice to the judge imposing the same sentence if he believes it appropriate.
We accordingly affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for consistent proceedings.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . Simpkins was bom on July 22, 1977.