VINCENT MISTRETTA, 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.
The appellate court reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that a defendant originally sentenced as a youthful offender must retain that status even after violating probation, and the trial court must designate him as such upon resentencing.
Yes, a defendant originally sentenced as a youthful offender must maintain that status upon resentencing for a violation of probation, regardless of whether the violation was substantive. The trial court erred in denying Mistretta's motion to correct his sentence.
[1] A sentencing court must maintain a defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing for a violation of probation, even when the violation was substantive.
[2] A youthful offender who commits a substantive violation of probation may be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the original crime.
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“the sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.”
Establishes the core legal principle regarding the retention of youthful offender status after 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 intelligenceVincent Mistretta, originally sentenced as a youthful offender for multiple crimes, violated his probation by committing a new offense. The trial cour…
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
Vincent Mistretta appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mistretta was originally sentenced as a youthful offender for counts of lewd and lascivious battery, child abuse, and assault and battery on a prison facility detainee or visitor. While serving the probationary portions of those sentences, Mistretta violated his probation by committing a new law violation. *562He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the original lewd and lascivious battery conviction. We reverse Mistret-ta’s sentence on this count and remand for the trial court to designate him a youthful offender. See Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[T]he sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” ); Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[W]hen 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.” ); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“ ‘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))).
We also note that under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2005), a youthful offender who commits a substantive violation of probation can be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the original crime. Therefore Mistretta’s eight-year prison sentence for one count of lewd and lascivious battery is legal. See § 800.04(4), Fla. Stat. (2005); State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982, 984-85 (Fla.2001); Smiley v. State, 781 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand only for amendment of Mistretta’s sentence to reflect his youthful offender classification.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…So. 3d at 496 (same); St. Cyr v. State , 106 So. 3d 487, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Josey v. State , 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 ,…
-
Josey v. State, 128 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…lthough the sentencing court was not limited by the six-year cap of section 958.04 because Josey committed a substantive violation of probation, the court was required to continue Josey’s youthful offender status on resentencing. Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand only for amendment of Josey’s sentences to reflect his youthful offender classification. Affirmed in par…
-
Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…liams’ youthful offender status. Upon finding that a youthful offender committed a substantive violation of probation, a trial court may impose the maximum sentence allowable for the crime, see § 958.14, Florida Statutes (2007); Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), but it must continue the defendant’s status as a youthful offender. See id. (reversing and remanding for the trial court to designate as a youthful offender the defendant who committed a new law violation while on youthful o…
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)
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Waymon M. Swilley v. State, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)