ROBERT J. SIMPKINS, 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.
Robert Simpkins appeals his armed robbery convictions and sentence. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence, holding that the trial court imposed a guidelines sentence based on the mistaken belief that Simpkins was ineligible for youthful offender sentencing, when he was in fact eligible.
The trial court erred in imposing a guidelines sentence based on the mistaken belief that armed robbery qualifies as a life felony and thus disqualifies a defendant from youthful offender sentencing. Armed robbery is a first-degree felony, not a life felony, and Simpkins was eligible for discretionary sentencing as a youthful offender.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a guilty plea when the court and counsel mistakenly believe the defendant is ineligible for youthful offender treatment due to the…
[2] A felony offense is not automatically considered a life felony simply because the statute authorizes imprisonment for a term not exceeding life.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is undisputed that Simpkins was eligible for sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act, section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1999). He was younger than 21 years old at the time of his offenses and had not previously been classified as a youthful offender.”
Establishes Simpkins's eligibility for youthful offender sentencing based on statutory criteria.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimpkins was convicted of armed robbery and flight from law enforcement. He was under 21 years old at the time of his offenses and had no prior youthf…
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 Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Robert Simpkins makes two challenges to his convictions and one to his sentence stemming from an armed robbery and ensuing flight from law enforcement. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but focus instead on the guidelines sentence the court imposed while apparently under the belief that it had no discretion to instead sentence Simpkins as a youthful offender. We remand for the court to reconsider the sentence in light of that discretion. It is undisputed that Simpkins was eligible for sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act, section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1999). He was younger than 21 years old at the time of his offenses and had not previously been classified as a youthful offender. § 958.04(1). The decision whether to sentence a defendant as a youthful offender is discretionary with the trial court. Ellis v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, the youthful offender statute does not apply to defendants who have been convicted of capital or life felonies. § 958.04(l)(c).
During Simpkins’s sentencing hearing, the court asked Simpkins’s counsel a question related to the guidelines. In response, counsel mistakenly stated that robbery with a firearm is a life felony, but he asked for the court’s leniency in light of Simpkins’s lack of prior offenses and various other circumstances. The parties and the court proceeded as if Simpkins was ineligible for sentencing as a youthful offender, and the court imposed a guidelines sentence.
The State acknowledges that the court sentenced Simpkins while under a mistaken impression about the classification of his robbery offense. Armed robbery is a first-degree felony, not a life felony, for sentencing purposes. Robinson v. State, 621 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), overruled on other grounds, 642 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As such, it is not excepted from application of the Youthful Offender Act. Richardson v. State, 398 So. 2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we reverse Simpkins’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing in light of its discretion to impose a youthful offender sentence. See Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267, 271 (Fla.1992) (remanding for reconsideration of sentence where trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentence in mistaken belief that such a sentence was mandatory); Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (resentencing ordered where trial court had sentenced defendant while under the erroneous belief that habitual offender enhancement was mandatory).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Casner, 825 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…uch discretion. Therefore, we reverse the order and remand to permit the court to reconsider its decision. In so doing, we express no preference for any of the discretionary remedies the court may choose to apply in this case. See Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Marchetta v. State, 766 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Driscoll v. Sharp, 711 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.…
-
Donnie Gallimore v. State, 100 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…bery while in actual possession of a firearm, is a first-degree felony, not a life felony, and as such, is not excepted from the youthful offender statute’s consideration. Ruth v. State, 949 So. 2d 288, 289-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We agree with our sister courts’ holdings. Second, the sentencing judge erred in stating that a person sentenced as a youthful offender does not go to state prison. The youthful offender statute allows a court to commit th…
-
Smith v. State, 819 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…t for the denial of his claim of scoresheet error. In particular, we find error in the calculation of the armed robbery counts as life felonies. “Armed robbery is a first-degree felony, not a life felony, for sentencing purposes.” Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); accord [*177] § 812.13(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). We also find that the total points, once correctly scored, would place appellant in a recommended range of seven to nine years in prison and a permitted range of five-and-a-half…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Pope v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Reyes v. State, 642 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Richardson v. State, 398 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Robinson v. State, 621 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)