DEMOND LAMONT ALEXANDER, 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.
Trial court erred by imposing a six-year youthful offender sentence exceeding guideline maximums without written departure reasons; reversed and remanded for resentencing with opportunity to reimpose same sentence if departure reasons are documented.
A trial court must provide written reasons for departure when imposing a youthful offender sentence that exceeds the guideline maximum.
[1] A trial court imposing a youthful offender sentence exceeding guideline maximums must provide written reasons for departure, and may reimpose the same sentence on remand…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probationary portion of his youthful offender sentence was revoked, and the trial court imposed a six-year sentence, which exceeded the ma…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his sentence following the revocation of the probationary portion of his youthful offender sentence. The State concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to the maximum youthful offender sentence of six years’ imprisonment as this sentence exceeded the maximum permitted under the guidelines. Contrary to appellant’s argument, however, we conclude that the trial court was under the mistaken belief that the sentencing 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 DCA 1998); Hernandez. Additionally, the written sentencing documents should be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that appellant receive credit for time served on the charges which formed the basis of his violation of probation.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 672 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Fields v. State, 712 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Sikorski v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)