BYRON TISDOL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Tisdol, sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment for crimes committed as a juvenile but sentenced as an adult, challenges the sentencing procedure. The Third District affirms the sentence but certifies the case to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the applicability of juvenile sentencing procedural requirements under the Criminal Appeals Reform Act.
The sentence is affirmed because the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not raising it under Rule 3.800(b) after the effective date of the Criminal Appeals Reform Act. The court certifies the case to the Florida Supreme Court to address the broader question of whether the Criminal Appeals Reform Act applies to juvenile sentencing procedures.
[1] A defendant who enters into a community control agreement, agreeing to a specific sentence upon violation, waives the right to challenge that sentence on appeal if the is…
[2] A defendant who is sentenced as an adult after the effective date of the Criminal Appeals Reform Act must preserve sentencing errors for appellate review pursuant to Rule…
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“defendant in the instant case was sentenced as an adult after the July 1, 1996 effective date of the Criminal Appeals Reform Act, he had the opportunity to preserve error on appeal pursuant to Rule 3.800(b)”
Establishes that the defendant had procedural opportunity to preserve the sentencing issue for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTisdol committed kidnapping and sexual battery in 1993 and 1994 when he was fourteen and fifteen years old. He pled guilty to lesser included offenses…
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 Juveniles as Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On September 22, 1998, defendant was found in violation of adult community con trol and was sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment for the underlying crimes of kidnapping and sexual battery, which were committed in 1993 and 1994 when the defendant was fourteen and fifteen years of age, respectively. Defendant pled guilty to the lesser included crimes of false imprisonment and attempted sexual battery. In April of 1998, defendant had admitted to a prior violation and, in receiving community control, had agreed that if subsequently found in violation, he would be sentenced to seventeen years.
Defendant now claims that the seventeen year sentence was improperly entered since the lower court did not follow the requirements for sentencing a juvenile as an adult under section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1997).
This contention comes despite the fact that defendant was twenty years old when he freely and voluntarily entered into the community control agreement, and everyone at the sentencing hearing, including defense counsel, believed that the juvenile now turned adult could conduct his own affairs. Since the defendant in the instant case was sentenced as an adult after the July 1, 1996 effective date of the Criminal Appeals Reform Act, he had the opportunity to preserve error on appeal pursuant to Rule 3.800(b).
See Cargle v. State, 701 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, 717 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1998).
Since the issue was not preserved, it is not subject to appellate review.
Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. - However, we certify this cause to the Florida Supreme Court so as to pair it for review with Cargle on the question of the applicability of the Criminal Appeals Reform Act to situations involving juveniles being sentenced as adults.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tisdol v. State, 794 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of petitioner’s motion, rehearing is granted. The opinion issued in this case on September 21, 2000, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place. We have for review Tisdol v. State, 747 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which cited to Cargle v. State, 701 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 770 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). In 1993, when…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Rico L. Cargle v. State, 701 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)