STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLEVELAND DAVIS, 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 court held that sentences imposing incarceration followed by probation, with withheld adjudication, are illegal under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute when the incarceration exceeds 364 days.
Appellee pleaded nolo contendere to three charges and was sentenced under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute with withheld adjudication, one year a…
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
SHAHOOD, J.
The State of Florida appeals from sentences imposed by the trial court in three concurrent orders on the grounds that such orders are illegal. We agree.
Appellee entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to each of three cases and was sentenced by the court under the Florida Youthful Offender Statute. In each case, the trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced appellee as a youthful offender with one year and one day in the Florida State Prison to be followed by two years probation, to run concurrently with credit for time served.
As a general rule, adjudication cannot be withheld if a defendant is incarcerated. See State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). However, adjudication can be withheld under the Youthful Offender Act if the incarceration is a condition of probation and the term of incarceration does not exceed 364 days. See id.; § 958.04(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). This case is controlled by State v. Butler, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D 2187 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 28,1998). In a virtually identical situation to the instant case, the Butler court reversed the trial court’s imposition of a split sentence under Youthful Offender statute, section 985.04(2)(c), and adopted the reasoning set forth in Oates. See id. In that case, the trial court withheld adjudication, but sentenced the defendant to 18 months in prison, followed by one year on probation. This court held that as in Oates, the sentence imposed by the trial court was improper and unauthorized under the Youthful Offender Statute. See id.
As in Butler, we vacate Davis’ sentence and remand with instructions that, upon adjudication of guilt, he may again be sentenced to incarceration, or, alternatively, the court may withhold adjudication and sentence him to a term of incarceration as a condition of probation so long as the incar-cerative portion does not exceed 364 days. See Butler. REVERSED.
KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collado v. State, 776 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…probation. . The offense date was February 1, 1999. . Not at issue here is placement in a probation and restitution center or community residential facility. The time limit for such a placement is 364 days. Id. § 958.04(2)(b); see State v. Davis, 721 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). . The choices include leaving the sentence at five years and striking the one-year probationary term, id. § 958.04(2)(d), or resentencing defendant to four years followed by two years of probation. Id. § 958.04(2)(c),(d). . Th…
-
Smith v. State, 973 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e Smith received more than one year in prison on the original youthful offender sentence imposed in 92-32777-B. As a result, he did not qualify for a withhold of adjudication. See State v. Vedace, 727 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Davis, 721 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The denial of Smith’s rule 3.800(a) motion is affirmed. WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.…
-
Dep't OF Corr. v. State of Fla. & Jeverious Franklin, 113 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ul Offender Act1 or otherwise, to withhold adjudication of guilt when sentencing a defendant to the Department of Corrections. State v. Dishman, 5 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Switzer v. State, 940 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Davis, 721 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Based upon the resentencing, the State asserted that the issue had become moot. Ordinarily, we would agree and dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari by order. However, of…
Authorities 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)