JAMES LACHENAUER, 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.
James Lachenauer, sentenced as a youthful offender for underlying crimes, was found to have violated probation by committing a new crime. The trial court imposed additional incarceration but failed to designate his youthful offender status in the sentencing order. The court reversed and remanded, holding that youthful offender status must be preserved in probation violation sentencing orders.
The court affirmed without discussion on the sufficiency of evidence and charging document issues. On the sentencing issue, the court held that once youthful offender status is imposed at initial sentencing, it may not be subsequently revoked upon sentencing for a probation violation, and the trial court erred by entering a sentencing order that did not reflect Lachenauer's youthful offender status.
[1] A youthful offender who technically violates probation may receive a sentence of incarceration up to the maximum sentence for the underlying crime or six years, whichever…
[2] A youthful offender's status may not be revoked upon sentencing for a violation of probation, absent specific circumstances not present in the case.
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“A youthful offender who technically, but not substantively, violates probation may receive a sentence of incarceration up to either (1) the maximum sentence for the underlying crime or (2) six years, whichever is less.”
Establishes the sentencing framework for youthful offenders who violate probation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLachenauer pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, possession of morphine, and trafficking in Oxycodone, and was …
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
James Lachenauer was charged with robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, possession of morphine, and trafficking in Oxycodone. He pleaded to the charges, was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced as a youthful offender to a term of prison followed by probation. The trial court found that Lachenauer violated his probation by committing a new crime, for which he was neither separately charged nor convicted. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced him to additional incarceration for violating probation, but failed to indicate that he was sentenced as a youthful offender. Lachenauer appeals, arguing (1) the evidence of a violation was insufficient; (2) the document charging him with violation of probation was insufficient; and (3) the sentencing order was improper because it failed to indicate his status as a youthful offender. We affirm on the first two issues without discussion and reverse *881on the final issue, remanding so that the trial court may enter a sentencing order which recognizes Lachenauer was sentenced for the violation of probation as a youthful offender.
A youthful offender who technically, but not substantively, violates probation may receive a sentence of incarceration up to either (1) the maximum sentence for the underlying crime or (2) six years, whichever is less. Rogers v. State, 972 So.2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2009). Additionally, credit must be given for time served. Id. Where the violation of probation is substantive and the maximum sentence for the underlying crime is more than six years, the trial court may impose incarceration for the violation in excess of the six-year cap. St. Cyr v. State, 106 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). However, once a youthful offender sentence has been imposed at the initial sentencing, the youthful offender status may not be subsequently revoked upon sentencing for a violation of probation, absent circumstances which are not present in the instant case. Id.; Rogers, 972 So.2d at 1019. A prisoner’s youthful offender status affects his or her classification within the prison system, the availability of programs, and the possibility of early release. Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Based upon the facts specific to this case, we find that although it was proper to sentence Lachenauer beyond the six-year cap, it was error for the trial court to enter a sentencing order that does not reflect his youthful offender status. As a result, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to enter an appropriate written sentencing order designating Lachenauer as a youthful offender.
Reversed and, remanded with directions.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)
-
Mosley v. State, 134 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
-
Granger v. State, 252 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Ocelyn ST. CYR v. State, 106 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- MacIer v. In re Est. OF Bessie Giamportone, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Rogers v. State, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)