RODNEY BOYNTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Rodney Boynton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief seeking resentencing as a youthful offender on new felony charges committed after his initial youthful offender sentence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a previously classified youthful offender charged with substantive new felonies (rather than mere violations of probation) is not entitled to youthful offender sentencing upon conviction of those new offenses.
A youthful offender previously classified as such who is charged with and convicted of new substantive felony offenses is not entitled to youthful offender sentencing upon conviction of those new charges. The trial court properly sentenced Boynton as an adult to 40 years on the new charges. Additionally, the guidelines scoresheet was properly calculated, with the escape charge appropriately included for one case.
[1] A defendant previously classified as a youthful offender who is subsequently charged with new substantive offenses, rather than a mere violation of probation or community…
[2] A charge that is nolle prossed may not be used to calculate a recommended guideline sentence for a case.
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“a defendant previously classified as a youthful offender who is subsequently charged with substantive offenses, and not with a mere violation of probation/community control, is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender upon conviction of the new, substantive offenses”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from State v. Hicks that determines when youthful offender sentencing applies to subsequent offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoynton was initially sentenced as a youthful offender at age seventeen to six years (four years in a youth correctional facility plus two years commu…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Rodney Boynton appeals the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm.
Boynton was initially sentenced as a youthful offender1 upon conviction for one count of armed robbery with a firearm, and one count of burglary of a structure with assault or battery with a dangerous weapon. He was seventeen years old at the time, and was committed to serve four years in a state correctional institution for youthful offenders followed by two years of community control, a legal six-year sentence.
Boynton escaped from the correctional facility, and subsequently committed an armed kidnapping with armed robbery, case number F88-40478, and armed robbery, case number F88-40074A. Boynton went to trial on the two new substantive cases and was found guilty. The trial court sentenced him in each case as an adult to 40 years in prison, with the sen-fences to run concurrently.
Boynton now asserts that he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender on the two substantive cases, following his original youthful offender sentencing. He is incorrect.. In State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) we held that a defendant previously classified as a youthful offender who is subsequently charged with substantive offenses, and not with a mere violation of probation/community control, is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender upon conviction of the new, substantive offenses. Here, the state did not charge Boynton with violating his youthful offender commitment. He was charged by information with new substantive felony offenses. Boynton was thus properly sentenced as an adult to -40 years on the new charges of armed kidnapping and armed robbery.
Boynton next asserts that his guidelines scoresheet was improperly calculated for case number F88^0478 by including the escape charge which was later nolle prossed by the State. However, the nolle prossed escape charge was not used to calculate the recommended guideline sentence for that case; rather, the state relied on a prior offense of dealing in stolen property. The charge of escape was properly included in the scoresheet for case number F88-40074A as it was an extant charge at time of sentencing. Boynton’s 40 year sentences áre not illegal.
Affirmed.
. Section 958.04, Florida Statutes (1987):
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…may not reclassify the defendant and sentence him or her in a manner inconsistent with [that statute].”). While a defendant is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender on any new offense he or she may have committed, see Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the trial court cannot revoke a defendant’s youthful offender status on offenses for which that defendant has already been sentenced. However, while the court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon revoc…
-
Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ence him or her in a manner inconsistent with section 958.04”). If the defendant is convicted of and sentenced for a new offense in a subsequent case, the defendant is not entitled to a youthful offender sentence in that new case. Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Rogers, where youthful offender probation was violated based on allegations that the defendant committed a new offense, we held that “if the defendant is not charge…
-
Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…Department. (i) Whether a Trial Court’s Decision to Sentence a Defendant Pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act Affects Sentencing for New Offenses Committed while the Defendant is Serving His or Her Youthful Offender Sentence. In Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the court dealt with a creative argument by a defendant who had committed new offenses while serving a youthful offender sentence. He argued that because he was a youthful offender at the time he committed the new offenses, the t…
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
- State v. Hicks, 545 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)