DAVID N. WILLIAMS, 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.
David Williams appealed his six-year sentence for violating probation, arguing that as a youthful offender who completed a Department of Corrections boot camp, he was limited to 364 days incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, finding that Williams failed to prove he had successfully completed the boot camp program in connection with his underlying convictions.
The defendant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he was entitled to the 364-day limitation on incarceration. The documentation he provided post-sentencing did not establish that he had successfully completed the boot camp program in connection with his underlying convictions.
[1] A defendant seeking to benefit from a statutory sentencing cap based on completion of a "boot camp" program bears the burden of proving successful completion of the progr…
[2] A letter from the Department of Corrections indicating completion of a boot camp program is insufficient to establish entitlement to a sentencing reduction if it fails to…
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“Concluding that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the defendant is entitled to receive any relief, we affirm.”
States the court's conclusion that Williams failed to prove his sentencing error claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with violating the terms of his probation and entered a no contest plea. The trial court accepted the plea, revoked his probation…
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 Youthful Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Williams (defendant) appeals his sentence which was entered by the trial court after he pled guilty to the charge of violating his probation. Concluding that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the defendant is entitled to receive any relief, we affirm.
The defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation. He subsequently entered a no contest plea to the charge. The trial court accepted the plea, revoked the defendant’s probation, and sentenced him in accordance with the sentencing guidelines to a term of six years imprisonment.
The defendant challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to sentence him to a term of incarceration longer than 364 days because he completed a Department of Corrections “boot camp” for youthful offenders. See Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(holding that a youthful offender can only receive a term of up to 364 days incarceration upon a violation of probation if he has previously successfully completed DOC boot camp for that offense). However, the defendant has not sustained his burden of proving this claim.
At the sentencing hearing, both the prosecutor and defense counsel acknowledged the defendant had previously been sentenced as a youthful offender and, as a result, there was a six year incarceration cap available for sentencing. However, no party raised the contention that the defendant had completed a boot camp program, and no argument was made that the defendant’s sentence must be limited to 364 days. Post-sentencing, the defendant sought rule 3.800 relief by filing with the trial court a letter from the Department of Corrections indicating that he had completed a boot camp program. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). However, the letter failed to establish that the defendant successfully completed the boot camp program in connection with the convictions at issue here.
While we have determined that the defendant is not entitled to receive any relief on direct appeal we note that, if the defendant is later able to obtain documentation which properly supports his claim of sentencing error, then he may be entitled to obtain post-conviction relief. See Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raymone LEE v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…the period of incarceration which may be imposed for violation of probation following successful completion of boot camp. See Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 841 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, as the state points out, the defendants in those cases were placed [*462] in boot camp programs operated by the Department of Corrections. Here, the defendant was not placed in the department’s boot camp program, but w…
-
Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…mposed for a violation of probation following successful completion of the Department of Corrections’ boot camp program.1 See Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 841 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Appellant urges this court to follow those cases and limit his term of imprisonment to no more than 364 days. The State maintains that the trial court did not eiT by sentencing the defendant to a sentence in excess of 364 days…
-
Adderly v. State, 958 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…4th DCA 2004); Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mason v. State, 864 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Lawson v. State, 845 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Williams v. State, 841 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Burkett v. State, 816 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Geri v. State, 797 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); and Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).…
Authorities Cited
- Baron Ellis Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)