KEVIN LEONHARDT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Act Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Kevin Leonhardt appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of vehicular homicide. We affirm his convictions without discussion. However, we reverse his sentences because, as the State correctly concedes, the trial court erred in sentencing Leonhardt pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act.
Leonhardt was sentenced pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act to serve two consecutive sentences of three years in prison followed by one year of community control, resulting in a total sentence of six years in prison and two years of community control. This sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law. Pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act, the “period of incarceration imposed or served and the period of probation or community control, when added together, shall not exceed 6 years.” § 958.04(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). See Kirkman v. State, 598 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Leonhardt’s combined period of incarceration and community control is eight years.
Accordingly, we affirm Leonhardt’s convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank ONE, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…at 672. Finally, the court was required to consider whether, in light of these six factors, a lesser sanction might have been sufficient. Again, the order is deficient in failing to consider this question. See Russell v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 779 So. 2d 452, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We observe that dismissal of this case cannot be upheld on the alternative ground of the one year delay in prosecution, since failure to prosecute permits only a dismissal without prejudice. See [*522] Cummings v. Dawson, 4…
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Linner, 193 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…efendant’s answer and affirmative defenses and entry of judgment on liability); Carr v. Reese, 788 So. 2d 1067, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that Kozel applies to dismissal or default entered as a sanction); Russell v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 779 So. 2d 452, 454-55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (applying Kozel to a final judgment entered as a sanction). However, it appears that the First District applies the Kozel factors when dismissal is entered as a sanction, even if the dismissal is mthout prejudice. See HSB…
-
Neekeada Woodall v. Hillsborough Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 778 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…nce in the record to indicate that [the party] personally engaged in misconduct.” Walicki v. Waste Management, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). King, 774 So. 2d at 69 (footnote omitted). See also Russell v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 779 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Applying the Kozel factors to this case, only factor (5) supports the position of the Hospital. The other factors support Woodall. At oral argument, appellant’s counsel, Mr. Blecke, recognized that the trial court had the a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drew David Kirkman v. State, 598 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)