JASON A. YEGGE, 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.
A defendant's youthful offender status cannot be revoked upon resentencing after a violation of probation, even for a substantive violation.
[1] A defendant's youthful offender status cannot be revoked upon resentencing after a violation of probation, even for a substantive violation involving a new offense.
[2] A youthful offender who commits a substantive violation of probation may be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the original offense, and the six-year limitat…
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 intelligenceYegge, sentenced as a youthful offender, violated probation and pleaded guilty to a new offense. The court revoked his youthful offender status and im…
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
Jason Alexander Yegge appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On March 7, 2003, Yegge pleaded guilty to charges of armed burglary, manufacture of marijuana, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him as a youthful offender to drug offender probation on the burglary and marijuana charges and to time served for the paraphernalia charge. Yegge violated probation several times and was sentenced to prison. However, on January 4, 2006, the court vacated the prison sentences and continued the original probationary term. In 2007, Yegge pleaded guilty to the new substantive offense of possession of cocaine. As a result, the circuit court revoked Yegge’s probation, sentenced him to a ten-year mandatory minimum prison term for his armed burglary conviction, and revoked his youthful offender status.
On appeal, Yegge alleges that his sentence is illegal because he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender and, thus, could not receive a mandatory minimum sentence. Yegge argues that the circuit court wrongfully revoked his youthful offender status because “ ‘[o]nce a circuit court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.’ ” Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
A youthful offender who commits a substantive violation of probation can be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the original offense; the six-year limitation applicable to youthful offender sentences no longer applies. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2007); State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982, 988-89 (Fla.2001); Lee, 67 So.3d at 1202; Swilley v. State, 781 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The maximum sentence for Yegge’s original offense, armed burglary, is life in prison. See § 810.02(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, Yegge’s ten-year mandatory minimum was not illegal. However, this court has repeatedly held that the sentencing *1060court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resentencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive. See Lee, 67 So.3d at 1202 (holding that “[w]hile a defendant is not entitled to be sentenced 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) (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 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same).
Both the Fifth and First Districts have similarly held that a defendant’s youthful offender status must be continued on re-sentencing after a violation of probation. See Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 441-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (explaining that, though a youthful offender may receive the maximum sentence that could have originally been imposed had he not been sentenced under the youthful offender act pursuant to section 958.14, he still maintains his “youthful offender status”); Hudson v. State, 989 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“When a defendant has been designated a youthful offender, the court may not change that status by way of revocation of probation or community control.”); Gardner v. State, 656 So.2d 933, 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that “once a defendant is sentenced under the provisions of section 958.04, a court may not reclassify the defendant and sentence him or her in a manner inconsistent with section 958.04”).
Importantly, this is not a mere paper victory. A youthful offender designation carries benefits — including the availability of programs and facilities, and, though Yegge may not qualify, eligibility for early release — within the criminal justice system. Lee, 67 So.3d at 1202 n. 1; Blacker, 49 So.3d at 787 n. 2; Christian, 84 So.3d at 443.
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for amendment of Yegge’s sentence to reflect his youthful offender classification.
Reversed and remanded.
VTLLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to [*1024] Rule 3.800(b)(2) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 We reverse because the trial court failed to continue Smith’s youthful offender designation. See Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also § 958.14 Fla. Stat. (2009). In 2008, Smith was charged with two counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft in two different cases. Smith pled no contest to all of the charges and the trial c…1 / 2
-
Odegaard v. State, 137 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…e, he again may be sentenced to up to the maximum sentence for the original offenses. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2008). However, he is entitled to retain his youthful offender designation for those offenses upon any resen-tencing. See Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (stating although youthful offender may receive maximum sentences for original offenses after [*509] substantively violating youthful offender probation, continued youthful offender designation carries benefits such as av…
-
Knite v. State, 102 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…, the defendant was convicted of any new, substantive criminal offenses. It was thus error for the trial court to fail to continue the defendant’s Youthful Offender designation upon the revocation of his community control. See, e.g., Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785, 788-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In light of the foregoing, we reverse the order revoking the defendant’s community control. As there can be no further revocations based upon counts II and IV…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- LEE v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Gardner v. State, 656 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Waymon M. Swilley v. State, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Letroy D. Mosley v. State, 77 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Wallace v. State, 989 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)