JEAN YVES JACQUES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jacques appeals the denial of his postconviction motion challenging his re-sentencing following probation revocation. The court held that while the 30-year sentence was lawful for a substantive probation violation, the sentencing order failed to reflect the required continuation of his youthful offender status, necessitating remand for correction.
The court held that a 30-year sentence was permissible because section 958.14 allows a youthful offender to receive the maximum sentence for the underlying offense when the probation violation is substantive. However, the court reversed because the sentencing order did not reflect the required continuation of youthful offender status, which must be maintained upon re-sentencing after probation violations.
[1] A substantive violation of probation permits a youthful offender to be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed for the crime for which they were found guilty.
[2] A court must continue a defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 circuit court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that youthful offender status must be continued upon re-sentencing after probation violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacques was initially sentenced as a youthful offender to six years probation after pleading guilty to trafficking in cocaine. Following probation vio…
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 Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Jean Yves Jacques appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal *420Procedure 3.800, claiming here that the court below erred in failing to continue his youthful offender status when he was re-sentenced following revocation of probation. Because the sentencing order does not confirm continuance of his youthful offender status, we reverse and remand for correction of that portion of the order.
Jacques was initially charged with trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)l of the Florida Statutes. After pleading guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine, he was sentenced as a youthful offender to six years probation. Thereafter, an affidavit of probation violation was filed alleging both technical and substantive violations on Jacques’ part. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court below determined that Jacques had violated the terms of his probation by engaging in a number of serious crimes (kidnapping with a weapon, armed burglary, armed robbery and sexual battery with a weapon).1 His probation was revoked and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison.
In his postconviction motion, Jacques claimed that the lower court erred in failing to continue his status as a youthful offender and in imposing a sentence beyond the permissible sentence of no more than six years for a technical or non-substantive violation of probation. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2012). The lower court denied the motion on both points. Jacques appeals the denial of his postcon-viction motion.
We find no error in the imposition of a sentence exceeding six years as section 958.14 provides that, for a substantive probation violation, a youthful offender may be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed for the crime for which he or she was found guilty. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2012) (providing that “no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for a substantive [probation] violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty ”) (emphasis added); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[T]he court is not limited to imposing the usual youthful offender sentence of six years or less in prison if the revocation is based on a substantive violation.”) In this case, Jacques was on probation for trafficking in cocaine, a first degree felony, which permits a term of imprisonment not exceeding thirty years. See § 775.082(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012); § 893.135(1)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (2012). Because Jacques committed a substantive violation of his probation, the thirty year sentence imposed was an authorized sentence.
We cannot, however, discern from the new sentencing order that Jacques’ youthful offender status was continued as required. See Lee, 67 So.3d at 1202 (“Once a circuit court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.” (quoting Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))).2 We therefore re*421verse and remand the sentencing order on review to be corrected to reflect that Jacques’ youthful offender status will continue under the new sentence. Jacques need not be present for correction of the sentence.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…youthful offender "status" along with the other attendant benefits of youthful offender sentencing. See, e.g. , Christian , 84 So. 3d at 442 ; Blacker , 49 So. 3d at 788 ; Gadson v. State , 160 So. 3d 496, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Jacques v. State , 95 So. 3d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; Hudson v. State , 989 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). It was the Arnette majority's statement that a defendant always retains his or her "youthful offender status" after violating probation that led the panel in Chr…
-
Yegge v. State, 186 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ul offenders maintain their “youthful offender status” ‘after violating probation or community control. See Lee v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); accord Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023, 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Jacques v. State, 95 So. 3d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437, 441-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Hudson v. State, 989 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). As we explained in Yegge, “[a] youthful offender designation carries benefits — including the availabil…
-
Crawford v. State, 147 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…tion and sentence for violation of youthful offender probation. We remand, however, for the sole purpose of having the trial court designate in Crawford’s judgment and sentence whether he maintains his youthful offender status. See Jacques v. State, 95 So. 3d 419, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Crawford need not be present for the administrative task of correcting the sentence. CLARK, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LEE v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Flores v. State, 46 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Morency v. State, 955 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Azar Osmanovic v. State, 46 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)