ADRIAN MIMS, 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.
Adrian Mims appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Mims successfully completed a boot camp program as a youthful offender, had his sentence modified to probation, but was then sentenced to 80 months upon violating probation. The appellate court reversed, holding that specific statutory provisions limiting probation violation sentences to 364 days for boot camp graduates must apply, not general youthful offender sentencing rules.
The court reversed, holding that upon probation violation by a youthful offender who successfully completed boot camp, the sentencing must comply with section 958.045(5)(c), which limits incarceration to 364 days, not the general youthful offender law that would permit the maximum sentence for the original offense.
[1] A specific statute controls over a general statute in cases of conflict.
[2] A defendant who successfully completes a boot camp program and subsequently violates probation may be subject to sentencing limitations under the specific statute governi…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“upon violation of probation, he could not be sentenced to a term of incarceration exceeding 364 days pursuant to sections 958.045(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).”
Establishes the statutory limitation on incarceration that applies to youthful offenders who complete boot camp upon probation violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMims was sentenced to 55 months for aggravated battery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor, with a recommendation for youthful offen…
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.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence in which he alleged that the 80-month sentence he received upon violating probation following his successful completion of boot camp is illegal. Because the record conclusively establishes the facial sufficiency of the motion and the appellant’s legal entitlement to relief, we reverse.
On October 14, 1999, the appellant was sentenced to 55 months’ imprisonment for the offenses of aggravated-battery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor. The court did not explicitly sentence him as a youthful offender but recommended that he be sent to a facility for youthful offenders. While incarcerated, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) recommended and accepted the appellant into the boot camp program. After the appellant successfully completed the program, DOC filed a motion to modify the appellant’s sentence pursuant to section 958.045, Florida Statutes (1999), and his sentence was modified from 55 months’ imprisonment to 4 years’ probation. The appellant subsequently admitted to violating his probation, his supervision was revoked, and he was sentenced to 80 months’ incarceration with credit for time served.
The appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, alleging that upon his violation of probation, he could not be sentenced to a term of incarceration exceeding 364 days pursuant to sections 958.045(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).
See Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Although the trial court acknowledged the applicability of these authorities, the trial court reasoned that, pursuant to State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla.2001), if an appellant commits a substantive violation of his probation, a trial court can revoke youthful offender status and sentence the appellant to the maximum sentence authorized for the offense of which he was found guilty. Meeks, however, is inapplicable to the current case because the appellant therein did not complete boot camp whereas the appellant in the instant case did. Upon violation of probation, Meeks was subject to resentencing pursuant to section 958.14, Florida Statutes, which is the general youthful offender law that the supreme court interpreted in Meeks. Here, however, the appellant completed boot camp, and therefore, upon his resentencing for violation of probation, he was subject to section 958.045(5)(c), which is a specific law pertaining to sentencing youthful offenders after boot camp completion. Well established principles of statutory construction require the specific statute to control over the general statute. See State v. J.M., 824 So. 2d 105, 112 (Fla.2002).
Therefore, the supreme court’s interpretation of section 958.14 in Meeks is inapplicable to the appellant’s present sentence.
We accordingly reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for sentencing consistent with Bloodworth and Thomas.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ALLEN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, 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)…exceed 364 days. Read together, these two statutes have been consistently construed as limiting to 364 days 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 th…
-
Fettler v. State, 885 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ell-established in the courts of Florida that when a youthful offender successfully completes boot camp, he may not be sentenced to more than 364 days of incarceration upon a violation of the subsequent period of probation. See, e.g., Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing §§ 958.04(2)(b), 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2003)); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mason v. State, 864 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032, 1034 (…
-
Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ts have consistently construed them as limiting to 364 days the period of incarceration which may [*434] be imposed 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…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. J.M., 824 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Baron Ellis Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)