MICHAEL ANTOINE EDWARDS, 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.
The court held that a trial court's failure to sentence an eligible juvenile as a youthful offender does not render the sentence illegal and is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding.
Edwards was sentenced to prison and probation for robbery convictions. He argued both sentences were illegal because he was a juvenile and should have…
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 Direct Appeal Vs. Collateral Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
Edwards appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which sought to correct illegal sentences. The trial judge sentenced Edwards to seventeen years in prison in case number 00-2710, in which Edwards was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon.1 On the same day in case number 00-4233, the trial court sentenced Edwards to five years probation for another robbery with a deadly weapon conviction, to run consecutively to the sentence in case number 00-2710. Edwards argues that both of his sentences are illegal because he was a juvenile at the time he committed these offenses and he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender.2
Whether to classify an eligible defendant as a youthful offender or to sentence an eligible juvenile who was prosecuted as an adult, to a youthful offender program, are discretionary decisions to be made by of the trial court. Failure to sentence a defendant as a youthful offender does not result in an illegal sentence. The issues of whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider the appropriateness of a youthful offender sentence in this case, or erred in concluding that defendant did not qualify as a youthful offender, are matters that could have and should have been raised on direct appeal.3 They are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Lee v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1996).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . § 812.13(1) and (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001).
. See generally, § 958.04(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).
. See generally, § 958.04(1), Fla. Stat. (2001) (criteria for determining whether a defendant may be classified as a youthful offender).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leahy v. State, 914 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
-
Langley v. State, 935 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. See Edwards v. State, 830 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (Whether to classify an eligible defendant as a youthful offender, or to sentence a juvenile who was prosecuted as an adult to a youthful offender program are discretionary decisions of the trial court). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, S…
-
Webster Jean MacIus v. State, 852 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. See Edwards v. State, 830 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). AFFIRMED. PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LEE v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1996)