JORGE DIAZ, 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 reversed the summary denial of a postconviction motion and remanded because the trial court violated section 958.04(2)(b) by imposing a sentence exceeding 364 days for a probation violation after the defendant completed youthful offender boot camp.
A defendant who completes youthful offender boot camp cannot be resentenced to more than 364 days' incarceration for a subsequent probation violation.
[1] A defendant who completes youthful offender boot camp is statutorily limited to a maximum 364-day sentence upon subsequent probation violation under section 958.04(2)(b),…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDiaz participated in a youthful offender boot camp program, resulting in modification of his original sentence. Upon violation of probation, the trial…
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 Statutory Sentencing Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion in which he asserts that the trial court erroneously imposed a sentence in excess of 364 days’ incarceration upon his violation of probation where the appellant had previously completed youthful offender boot camp.
A defendant may not be resentenced upon a subsequent violation of probation to a period exceeding 364 days’ incarceration following participation in a youthful offender boot camp pursuant to section 958.04(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). See Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, according to appellant’s motion and supporting documents, he participated in a youthful offender boot camp program and as a result, the trial court modified his original sentence. Thus, the trial court’s imposition of a sentence exceeding 364 days’ incarceration upon the appellant’s violation of probation violates section 958.04(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), and appears to be illegal. See Thomas, 825 So. 2d at 1033; Blood-worth, 769 So. 2d at 1118.
We, therefore, REVERSE the summary denial and REMAND for the trial court to either attach documentation conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim, or to resen-tence the appellant consistent with Thomas and Bloodworth.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adderly v. State, 958 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…*999] rule, which has now been superseded by the amendment 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…
-
Love v. State, 24 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…He alleges that the Youthful Offender (YO) statutes limit his period of incarceration to no more than 364 days after completion of YO Boot Camp. Love states that he was sentenced to boot camp for charges committed in 2004 and cites to Diaz v. State, 929 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In Diaz, the first district reversed a trial court’s imposition of a sentence, which exceeded 364 days of incarceration, where the youthful offender attended boot camp pursuant to section 958.04(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). L…
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)