ANDREW URBAN, 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.
Andrew Urban appeals his convictions for cannabis possession and two DUI counts, challenging his sentences under Florida's Youthful Offender Act. The appellate court affirms the convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court incorrectly applied an amended version of the statute rather than the version in effect when the crime was committed.
The trial court erred by retroactively applying the amended statute. The court should have applied the youthful offender statute in effect on the date the crime was committed, not the date of sentencing. Urban's convictions are affirmed, but his sentences are reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing under the correct version of the statute.
[1] A trial court errs by retroactively applying an amended statute to a defendant when the original statute was in effect at the time of the offense.
[2] A defendant is entitled to have a youthful offender sentence considered under the statutory version in effect on the date the crime was committed.
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“The trial court should have applied the statute in effect on the date of the crime, not the date of sentencing.”
Establishes the core holding that the appropriate statute is determined by the date the offense was committed, not the date of sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUrban committed cannabis possession and two driving under the influence offenses on September 27, 2008, when he was under 21 years old. At sentencing,…
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 Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
Andrew Urban appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cannabis and two counts of driving under the influence. Urban raises two issues. First, he argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We find the evidence was sufficient and reject this argument without further comment. In his second issue, Urban contends the trial court applied the wrong version of Florida’s Youthful Offender Act at sentencing. The State concedes error on this point. On the date of Urban’s offenses, September 27, 2008, a trial court could impose a youthful offender sentence under section 958.04(l)(b), Florida Statutes, if the defendant committed the crime before his 21st birthday. On October 1, 2008, section 958.04(l)(b) was amended to require the *1114defendant to be under the age of 21 at the time of sentencing. As luck would have it, Urban was under 21 on the date he committed the crimes, but over 21 on the date of sentencing. The trial court declined to consider a youthful offender sentence, retroactively applying the amended version of the statute. This was error. The trial court should have applied the statute in effect on the date of the crime, not the date of sentencing. See Postell v. State, 971 So.2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Allen v. State, 383 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Therefore, we affirm Urban’s convictions but reverse his sentences. We remand for resentencing under the correct version of the youthful offender statute. We do not hold that Urban should be sentenced as a youthful offender, only that the trial court must consider a youthful offender sentence at a de novo sentencing hearing on remand.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with instructions.
MONACO, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malando Wright v. State, 96 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…nts to run concurrently. Petitioner was entitled to have the law in effect at the time the offense was committed applied at sentencing. The court erred in determining that it lacked discretion to impose a youthful offender sentence. Urban v. State, 46 So. 3d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this preserved error. The petition is granted, and the sentence is vacated. The trial court shall hold a new sentencing hearing and consider imposing youthful offender…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. State, 383 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- First Response Grp., Inc. v. Castro, 971 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)