STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL BUTLER, 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.
The appellate court reviewed a sentence imposed under Florida's Youthful Offender Statute. The court found the sentence improper because it exceeded the statutory limit for incarceration as a condition of probation.
No, the sentence was improper because the statutory scheme limits incarceration as a condition of probation under the Youthful Offender Statute to a maximum of 364 days when adjudication is withheld.
[1] A sentence of incarceration imposed as a condition of probation or community control under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute cannot exceed 364 days when adjudication…
[2] When adjudication is withheld under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute, the term of incarceration imposed as a condition of probation or community control is limited t…
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“The court may impose a split sentence whereby the youthful offender is to be placed on probation or community control upon completion of any specified period of incarceration; however, if the incarceration period is to be served in a department facility other than a probation and restitution center or community residential facility, such period shall be for not less than 1 year or more than 4 years.”
This quote states the general rule for split sentences under the Youthful Offender Statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant pleaded nolo contendere to robbery and was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Statute. The trial court withheld adjudication but sent…
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 Incarceration As Condition Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of robbery and was sentenced under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute (YOS).1 The trial court withheld adjudication, but sentenced him to 18 months in prison, followed by 1 year on probation. This appeal follows.
Both parties agree that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to section 958.04(2)(c), of the Youthful Offender Statute, which provides that:
“The court may impose a split sentence whereby the youthful offender is to be placed on probation or community control upon completion of any specified period of incarceration; however, if the incarceration period is to be served in a department facility other than a probation and restitution center or community residential facility, such period shall be for not less than 1 year or more than 4 years.”
At the same time, section 958.04(2)(b) allows incarceration as a condition of probation or community control, as here, in a community or county facility or in a probation or restitution center, but limits the term of such incarceration to np more than 364 days.
In State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court held that a sentence functionally indistinguishable from the sentence in this case was improper and unauthorized by the statute under which it was imposed. There as here, the court imposed incarceration under the YOS as a condition of probation or community control, but imposed a stated term greater than 364 days. The court noted that adjudication may not be withheld when the defendant is incarcerated, unless the term of incarceration does not exceed 364 days. We agree with the reasoning of Oates and adopt it in this district.
We vacate Butler’s sentence and remand with instiuctions that, upon adjudication of guilt, he may again be sentenced to incarceration or, alternatively, the court may decline to adjudicate him guilty and sentence him to a term of incarceration as a condition of probation so long as the incarcerative portion does not exceed 364 days.
REVERSED.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. . See § 958.04, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tamario Calloway, 718 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. This is a companion case with State v. Butler, 719 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trial judge imposed the same improper sentence on this co-defendant as he did in Butler. Accordingly we reverse with the same instructions. STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Vedace, 727 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ce pursuant to §958.04(2)(c), Fla Stat. (1997),2 it was not authorized to simultaneously withhold adjudication and incarcerate Vedace, as a condition of probation, to a term exceeding 364 days. See § 958.04(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Butler, 719 So. 2d 344, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(reversing a sentence under § 958.04(2)(c) which withheld adjudication but sentenced defendant to eighteen months in prison followed by one year’s probation). Accordingly, we reverse and direct that the co…
-
State v. Rajae Dishman, 5 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…commendation he be sent to boot camp, but withheld adjudication of guilt. The state appealed, arguing that the withholding of adjudication was error, since Dish-man was sentenced to more than 364 days of incarceration. We agree. See State v. Butler, 719 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We vacate Dishman’s sentence and re [*774] mand the action to the trial court for re-sentencing in conformity "with this opinion. GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Square D Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)