TYLER M. PORTER, 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.
Tyler Porter appealed his conviction for violating probation after successfully completing a youthful offender boot camp. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition, finding that Porter was entitled to immediate release because his current sentence exceeded the statutory maximum of 364 days allowed for youthful offenders who violate probation.
The court held that Porter was entitled to immediate release because his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum of 364 days. The court also held that a defendant cannot be sentenced as both an adult and a youthful offender on charges arising from the same information, contrary to the trial court's reasoning.
[1] Upon successful completion of boot camp, a trial court is required to reduce a defendant's remaining term of incarceration to probation.
[2] If a youthful offender who has successfully completed boot camp violates probation, the trial court may impose a term of incarceration not to exceed 364 days.
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 successful completion of boot camp, a trial court is required to reduce a defendant's remaining term of incarceration to probation.”
Establishes the mandatory duty of trial courts regarding youthful offenders who complete boot camp
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 22, 2002, Porter was convicted of five counts of falsely reporting a bomb or explosion and sentenced to consecutive terms of five years' pr…
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.
In this direct appeal from Appellant’s conviction for violating his probation, Appellant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation and the denial of his petition for a writ of a habeas corpus. We agree that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s petition and reverse. Because the outcome of the petition for writ of habeas corpus controls this case, we do not address Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in revoking his probation.
On January 22, 2002, Appellant was convicted of five counts of falsely reporting a bomb or explosion and was sentenced to four consecutive terms of five years’ probation and to five years’ imprisonment. The trial court recommended that Appellant be treated as a youthful offender. Upon this recommendation, Appellant was placed in and successfully completed youthful offender boot camp. Thereafter, the trial court modified Appellant’s prison sentence and placed him on five years’ probation consecutive to the remaining four terms of probation.
An affidavit of violation of probation was filed against Appellant. Prior to the hearing on this affidavit, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that he had served 436 days of imprisonment as of the date of the petition and that he was entitled to immediate release due to his successful completion of boot camp.
The trial court denied the petition because it believed that Appellant was only sentenced as a youthful offender on one count of the five count information and that he was sentenced as an adult on the remaining counts. After the presentation of evidence, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation on all counts and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of four years’ imprisonment, two concurrent terms of four years’ imprisonment, and to 364 days in county jail on the remaining count.
Upon successful completion of boot camp, a trial court is required to reduce a defendant’s remaining term of incarceration to probation. § 958.045(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).
If a youthful offender who has successfully completed boot camp violates probation, the trial court may impose a term of incarceration not to exceed 364 days. Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); § 958.04(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Appellant’s current sentence is well in excess of this statutory maximum. Contrary to the reasoning of the trial court in its denial, a defendant may not be sentenced as an adult and as a youthful offender on charges arising from the same information. Lynch v. State, 898 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Kelly v. State, 739 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Louissaint v. State, 727 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Johnson v. State, 596 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Dimilta v. State, 590 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Because Appellant has already served in excess of the statutory maximum, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition of habeas corpus and remand for the immediate release of Appellant as to all charges arising from this information.
REVERSED.
BROWNING, C.J., DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adderly v. State, 958 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…., concur. . Similar to Fettler, we have identified the following cases stating and applying the old [*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…
-
Alain Adan v. State, 979 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…he 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error filed in lower court case number 04-485CF. In lower court case number 04-682CF, appellant correctly asserts that the maximum sentence the trial judge could have imposed was 364 days. Porter v. State, 940 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Appellant’s 365-day sentence was therefore illegal. The sentence, however, was imposed on September 12, 2006, and was imposed to run concurrent with the sentence in lower court case number 04-485CF. Accordingly, the error is moo…
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)
- Aundray Kelly v. State, 739 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Lubins Louissaint v. State, 727 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Dimilta v. State, 590 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Johnson v. State, 596 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Miles v. K-Mart Corp. & Cambridge Integrated Servs. Grp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)