NATHAN CUTLER, 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.
Nathan Cutler challenges his postconviction sentence for violating youthful offender probation, arguing that Florida law limits his imprisonment to 364 days because he successfully completed a Department of Corrections boot camp. The court agrees and reverses, holding that section 958.045(5)(c) controls sentencing for probation violations following successful boot camp completion, not the general sentencing statute cited by the trial court.
A youthful offender who successfully completes a Department of Corrections boot camp is limited to 364 days of imprisonment upon probation violation under sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), regardless of whether the violation is substantive. Section 958.045(5)(c) rather than section 958.14 controls sentencing in such cases.
[1] A youthful offender who successfully completes a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections is subject to a maximum of 364 days imprisonment upon violation of pr…
[2] When a youthful offender violates probation after successfully completing a boot camp, section 958.045(5)(c) controls the sentencing, not section 958.14.
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“because Cutler successfully completed a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections, the trial court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of 364 days after Cutler violated his youthful offender probation”
States the core error and the court's holding that the 364-day cap applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCutler was sentenced in September 2001 to concurrent four-year terms as a youthful offender. On July 2, 2002, he completed boot camp and his sentences…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*250] SALCINES, Judge.
Nathan Cutler challenges the postcon-vietion court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The State candidly concedes that because Cutler successfully completed a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections,1 the trial court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of 364 days after Cutler violated his youthful offender probation. See Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
On September 17, 2001, the trial court sentenced Cutler in cases 99-17534 and 01-2064 as a youthful offender to concurrent terms of four years’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation. On July 2, 2002, Cutler finished boot camp and his sentences were modified to five years’ youthful offender probation pursuant to section 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1999, 2001). On May 15, 2004, the trial court found Cutler in violation of probation in both cases. As a result, the trial court sentenced him to seventy-five months’ incarceration in one case and to terms of seventy-five months and sixty months’ incarceration in the second case. All the sentences were to be served concurrently.
In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Cutler alleged that because he successfully completed boot camp, sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c) limit his prison exposure to 364 days upon violation of youthful offender probation. See Bloodworth, 769 So. 2d at 1118. But see Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c) do not apply to a defendant who was committed to a boot camp not operated by the Department of Corrections); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (same). The postconviction court did not agree. Citing section 958.14, it determined that because Cutler’s probation was revoked based on a substantive violation, it could sentence Cutler to the maximum sentence authorized for the offenses for which he was on probation. This rationale was rejected in Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), which held that section 958.045(5)(c) rather than section 958.14 controlled when a youthful offender had violated probation following successful completion of boot camp.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for Cutler to be resentenced in both cases in accordance with section 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c) to a total of 364 days’ imprisonment with credit for time served.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . "Boot camp” refers to the youthful offender basic training program per section 958.045, Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adderly v. State, 958 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…dment to section 958.045(5)(c), approved by chapter 06-270, Laws of Florida: Porter v. State, 940 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Eason v. State, 932 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Diaz v. State, 929 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Claridy v. State, 911 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Green v. State, 902 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Mims v. State, 871 So…
-
Deonno Miller v. State, 77 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…1, 2006, the sentences imposed on the revocation of his youthful offender probation indeed violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. See Morrison v. State, 978 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (providing that an offender who completes a county-operated boot camp would not be entitled to section 958.045(5…
-
Lagarrian R. Donaldson v. State, 146 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…icable to Donaldson, a youthful offender who violated probation could not be sentenced to more than 364 days in jail if he had completed the youthful offender “boot camp” program. See §§ 958.04(2)(b), .045(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005);1 Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). He was resentenced to one year in jail for first-degree burglary. However, the post-conviction court denied Donaldson’s involuntary plea claim, reasoning that Do…
Authorities Cited
- Baron Ellis Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Raymone LEE v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)