MATTHEW VANTINE, 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.
Matthew Vantine appealed his probation revocation sentences, arguing that his youthful offender status was illegally revoked and that some of his sentences exceeded statutory maximums. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that youthful offender status cannot be revoked upon probation violation and that sentences for third-degree felonies must not exceed five-year maximums.
The court held that youthful offender status cannot be revoked upon probation violation and must be reinstated. Additionally, sentences for third-degree felonies (burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance, and grand theft of a motor vehicle) with five-year maximum sentences were illegal at ninety-nine months and must be resentenced within statutory limits, while sentences for second-degree felonies with fifteen-year maximums were proper.
[1] A defendant's youthful offender status, once imposed, must be continued upon resentencing after a violation of a youthful offender commitment.
[2] A defendant's admission that they would test positive for marijuana constitutes a substantive violation of probation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Once a trial court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status on resentencing after violation of the defendant's youthful offender commitment.”
Establishes the key legal principle that youthful offender status cannot be revoked upon probation violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVantine originally pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance, and grand theft of a m…
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 Substantive Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Vantine appeals his judgments and sentences imposed after he admitted violating his probation for the underlying offenses of three counts of burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. See §§ 810.02(3)(b); 810.02(4)(a), (b); 812.014(2)(c)(6), Fla. Stat. (2006). He preserved the right to appeal the issue of whether his sentences were illegal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(d). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mr. Vantine originally pleaded to the underlying offenses in exchange for a sentence of two years of prison followed by two years of community control and one year of probation. He subsequently violated his community control, resulting in modification to a new term of three years of probation with no change to his youthful offender status. Thereafter, Mr. Vantine admitted violating probation condition three by changing his residence without permission and leaving Pinellas County without permission, condition four by possessing a “Pepper Taser,” and condition eleven by refusing to submit to a drug test. In addition to admitting these tech*352nical violations, he admitted violating condition five by failing to live without violating the law, after he told an officer that he would not take a drug test because it would be positive for marijuana. Mr. Van-tine’s admission that he would test positive for marijuana constitutes a substantive violation of probation. See Swilley v. State, 781 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court revoked Mr. Vantine’s youthful offender status and sentenced him to ninety-nine months for each of the six underlying offenses, concurrent.
Mr. Vantine argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in revoking his youthful offender status. We agree. Once a trial court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status on resentencing after violation of the defendant’s youthful offender commitment. Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Mr. Van-tine’s youthful offender status could not be revoked upon violation of probation. See id. at 788-89. Accordingly, we reverse the revocation of his youthful offender designation.
Mr. Vantine also challenges his sentence. As a youthful offender with a substantive violation for which he was not separately charged and convicted, he could be sentenced to no longer than the maximum sentence for each offense. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2006).1 The trial court properly sentenced him to ninety-nine months for the three second-degree-felony burglaries of a dwelling that carry fifteen-year maximum sentences. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006); § 810.02(3)(b). However, the ninety-nine-month sentences for burglary of a structure, burglary of a conveyance, and grand theft of a motor vehicle were illegal because they are third-degree felonies that carry five-year maximum sentences. See §§ 775.082(3)(d); 810.02(4)(a), (b); 812.014(2)(c)(6).
We affirm the sentences for the second-degree felonies, but we reverse the sentences for the third-degree felonies and remand for resentencing on those counts within the five-year máximums. We reverse the revocation of Mr. Vantine’s youthful offender status and remand for reinstatement of that status.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…status.” See, e.g., Mosley v. State, 77 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); [*443] Perez v. State, 75 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Eustache v. State, 83 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Lee v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 41 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). It might be less confusing if we dropped the phrase “youthful offender status” and simply explained that the longer senten…
-
Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…nced as a youthful offender on any new offense he or she may have committed, the trial court cannot revoke a defendant’s youthful offender status on offenses for which that defendant has already been sentenced” (citation omitted)); Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (explaining that the defendant’s youthful offender status could not be revoked upon violation of probation for a substantive violation involving a new law offense); Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (aff…
-
Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…tory maximum for the crime. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2009). But when a youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14, his status as a youthful offender cannot be revoked. Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The written sentence entered after Tidwell’s probation violation does not designate him as a youthful offender. Accordingly, we remand with directions to correct the s…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Waymon M. Swilley v. State, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)