ASHAHLEH SANDERS-BASHUI, 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.
Sanders-Bashui challenges her sentence imposed after probation revocation for failing to complete a required residential treatment program. The appellate court affirms the conviction but agrees the sentencing claim has merit, directing her to pursue the challenge through proper post-conviction procedures in the trial court.
The appellate court affirms the sentence without prejudice, agreeing that Sanders-Bashui raises a meritorious claim regarding the legality of her sentence but holding that she failed to preserve the issue for direct appeal by failing to challenge it in the trial court, requiring her to pursue the claim through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion instead.
[1] A defendant previously sentenced as a youthful offender must continue to be treated as such upon revocation of probation, and any resentencing must be as a youthful offen…
[2] A youthful offender's sentence after revocation of probation or community control is limited to a maximum of six years, less credit for time served.
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“no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for ... a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.”
Statute governing maximum sentences for youthful offenders convicted of technical 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 intelligenceSanders-Bashui was convicted of armed robbery in 2007 and sentenced as a youthful offender to 364 days in jail followed by five years of probation, wi…
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 Technical Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
On direct appeal, Ashahleh Sanders-Ba-shui raises challenges to the legality of her sentence. We affirm without prejudice to Sanders-Bashui filing an appropriate post-conviction motion in the trial court that addresses these challenges.
In 2007, Sanders-Bashui was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a youthful offender to 364 days in jail, followed by five years of probation. One of the conditions of her probation was the successful completion of a residential treatment program. She violated this condition in 2011. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked her probation and sentenced her to sixty-six months in prison, followed by one year of probation and two years of community control.1
In one challenge to her sentence, Sanders-Bashui argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her to a term exceeding six years because her failure to complete the treatment program was a technical violation of probation. The governing statute provides that
no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for ... a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.
§ 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2011). It is clear that the trial court’s revocation in this case was based upon a technical violation. See State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982, 989 (Fla.2001) (“[W]e conclude that a ‘substantive violation,’ as the phrase is used in section 958.14, refers exclusively to a violation premised on the commission of a separate criminal act.”).
The State concedes that Sanders-Bashui raises a meritorious claim in this regard. The State contends, however, that this court should not address Sanders-Bashui’s claim on direct appeal because she did not challenge the legality of her sentence in the trial court. Under Supreme Court precedent, and as provided by the governing rules, the State notes that Sanders-Bashui should have preserved the issue by objection or by a motion to correct an illegal sentence prior to filing her initial brief. Because she failed to do so, the State argues that this court should affirm without prejudice to her filing a legally sufficient Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the trial court. Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 458 (Fla.2003); Bannister v. State, 990 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Santiago v. State, 870 So.2d 198, 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); but see Lightsey v. State, 112 So.3d 616, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We agree with the State.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…3d 548, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct the sentence imposed to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”); Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So. 3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). (affirming defendant’s sentence on direct appeal without prejudice to her filing a rale 3.800(a) motion in the trial court where State conceded claim was meritorious but defendant did not challenge sentence in trial court).…
-
Elmore v. State, 172 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…al sentence on direct appeal. Austin v. State, 158 So. 3d 648, 651-52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (declining to review an unpre-served. claim of illegal sentence on direct appeal), review granted 2015 WL 795801 (Fla. Feb. 13, 2015); Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So. 3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (declining to review on direct appeal a claim of illegal sentence where the issue was neither preserved by a contemporaneous objection nor a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); Daniels v. State, 118 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…
-
Robertson v. State, 134 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…fective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal.”); Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So. 3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (same).…
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
- Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003)
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Santiago v. State, 870 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Tavarus Lightsey v. State, 112 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Varela v. State, 990 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Carlton Bannister v. State, 990 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)