SHAKIA NICOLE SMITH, 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.
Shakia Smith challenges her 10-year prison sentence for attempted armed robbery with a firearm after violating community control. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while a youthful offender must retain that designation upon resentencing, the trial court can impose sentences up to the statutory maximum when the violation involves substantive new law violations.
A youthful offender must retain that designation upon resentencing after a violation of community control, but the court is not limited to the usual 6-year maximum. When the revocation is based on substantive new law violations, the court can impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offense, which for armed robbery is 15 years.
[1] A court must continue a youthful offender status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.
[2] A 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 of probation.
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 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 preservation of youthful offender status upon resentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was originally designated a youthful offender and sentenced for attempted armed robbery with a firearm. While on community control, she violated…
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
At issue in this appeal is whether, after Appellant violated community control by committing new law violations, the trial court illegally sentenced her to a prison term of 10 years for attempted armed robbery with a firearm, when Appellant originally was designated a youthful offender.
“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.” Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing State v. Arnette, 604 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1992)). “However ... the 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 of probation.” Id. (emphasis in original). In such cases, the court can impose up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses. Id. (citing § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010)). Further, separate charges and convictions are not required to support a substantive violation of probation based upon the commission of a new law violation. See Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Appellant admitted to violating her community control by committing three new law violations. The trial court correctly determined that although Appellant maintained the designation of “youthful offender” following the violation, she nonetheless was subject to being sentenced up to the statutory maximum — 15 years — for the armed robbery. See §§ 812.13(2)(a); 777.04(1); 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). Appellant’s 10-year sentence is legal, and therefore we AFFIRM.
BENTON, C.J., ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…is youthful offender probation by committing a substantive violation,2 the court is not bound to “‘the usual youthful offender sentence of six years or less’ ” and “can impose up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses.” Smith v. State, 109 So. 3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Lee v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)). However, once a trial court imposes a youthful offender sentence, “ ‘it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation [*1025] or…
-
Flagg v. State, 179 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…989 (Fla.2001). Where there has been a substantive violation, such, as a new law offense, a previously designated youthful offender may be sentenced above the six-year cap up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses.’ See Smith v. State, 109 So. 3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In contrast to a substantive violation, which allows for a higher sentence, when there has been a technical violation of probation, i.e., a violation of a rule of probation, the six-year sentencing cap still applies. See W…
-
McBURNETT v. State, 188 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…d to ‘the usual youthful offender sentence of six years or less’ and ‘can impose up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses.’ ” Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (footnote omitted) (quoting Smith v. [*974] State, 109 So. 3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)). In the order on appeal, the court also properly recognized that, as here, when a defendant receives a sentence in excess of the six-year cap, the court must maintain the defendant’s designation as a youthful offender bec…
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)
- Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1992)