STEVEN TIDWELL, 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.
Affirmed probation violation sentence but remanded to correct sentencing documents to reflect that youthful offender designation must continue despite the violation.
A youthful offender's designation cannot be revoked when the offender commits a probation violation, even a substantive one, and sentencing documents must reflect the continuing designation.
[1] A youthful offender designation cannot be revoked when the offender commits a probation violation, and sentencing documents must continue to reflect the youthful offender…
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 intelligenceTidwell was designated a youthful offender for lewd battery and later violated probation. The circuit court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment b…
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 Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
The circuit court found that Steven Tid-well violated the terms of the probation to which he had been sentenced for the crime of lewd battery, and it sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders1 brief, stating that she could find no meritorious argument to support reversal. We agree, but when reviewing the record we discovered an error in the sentencing documents.
Tidwell was designated a youthful offender when he was originally sentenced for the lewd battery crime. His sentence on the violation of probation is permissible under the youthful offender act because he committed a new law offense and his sentence does not exceed the statutory 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 sentencing documents to reflect that the designation continues. Tid-well does not need to be present for the correction.
Affirmed; remanded for correction of sentencing documents.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…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) (affirming that “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”); Mosley v. State, 77 So. 3d 877, 877 (Fl…
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…e , 128 So. 3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same); Lachenauer v. State , 117 So. 3d 880, 880-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Mistretta v. State , 99 So. 3d 561, 561-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same); Christian , 84 So. 3d at 442 (same); Tidwell v. State , 74 So. 3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same); Blacker , 49 So. 3d at 788 (same); Johnson v. State , 41 So. 3d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (same); Hudson , 989 So. 2d at 726 (same); Rogers v. State , 972 So. 2d 1017, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same); see also…
-
Harden v. State, 87 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…e defendant’s prior bad acts committed against victim were admissible to show the defendant’s motive and intent even though they were not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to warrant introduction for purposes of identity); State v. Wright, 74 So. 3d 503, 505-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that, in the prosecution of the defendant for armed kidnapping of the victim, evidence of the defendant’s [*1247] prior acts of domestic violence against the victim was relevant to the issues of motive and intent,…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)