ULYSES WEST, 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.
Ulyses West, a youthful offender, appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed for probation violations. The court reversed because the trial court improperly applied the Youthful Offender Act by sentencing West to ten years for technical violations when the statute caps such sentences at six years unless a substantive violation (separate criminal act) occurred.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing a ten-year sentence because failure to report and leaving the county without permission are technical violations of probation rules, not substantive violations based on separate criminal acts. Under section 958.14, a youthful offender cannot be committed for more than six years for a technical violation. The sentence was reversed and remanded to determine whether the August 28, 2008 Broward County charges constituted a substantive violation.
[1] A youthful offender cannot be committed to the custody of the department for a technical violation of probation for a period longer than six years or the maximum sentence…
[2] A "substantive violation" of probation refers exclusively to a violation premised on the commission of a separate criminal act.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated, or 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.”
This is the controlling statutory language from section 958.14 that limits sentences for youthful offenders on technical violations to six years.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest pled guilty to armed robbery and armed burglary in 2004 and was sentenced to four years in prison followed by two years of probation. In 2008, hi…
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
Ulyses West appeals an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the trial court erred in its application of section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2013), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On August 17, 2004, Ulyses West pled guilty to the charges of armed robbery and armed burglary and was sentenced to four years in state prison followed by two years of probation. On October 15, 2008, West’s probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation. The affidavit set forth two violations: (1) that West failed to report to his probation officer after being released from confinement on February 11, 2008, and failed to report as of August 28, 2008; and (2) that West left his county of residence without the consent of his probation officer as evidenced by his arrest in Broward County on August 28, 2008, for riding a bike with no/improper light and possession of cannabis. The trial judge sentenced West to serve ten years in state prison for violating his probation.
West filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming the trial court erred by imposing a ten-year sentence because, as a youthful offender, he could not have been sentenced to more than six years imprisonment based only on a technical violation. The order denying West’s motion stated that West had committed substantive violations while on probation, and noted that West “failed to report to probation for six months and picked up two new law violations.”
We review the trial court’s application of the Youthful Offender Act de novo. Luscomb v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 967 So.2d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The Youthful Offender Act provides:
A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06. However, no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for a substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated, or 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, Florida Statutes (2013) (emphasis added). “[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.” State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982, 989 (Fla.2001). In contrast, “a technical violation is a violation of a rule of probation.” Swilley v. State, 781 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
*1157As the State properly concedes, failure to report and leaving the county of residence without permission are technical offenses because they are merely violations of the rules or probation. See Meeks, 789 So.2d at 989; Swilley, 781 So.2d at 460. Under section 958.14, West could not be sentenced for a period of longer than six years for a technical violation. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying West’s motion to correct illegal sentence.
However, the record before us is unclear as to West’s charges in Broward County on August 28, 2008. While the probation officer’s affidavit indicates that West was arrested for two new offenses, the record includes neither evidence of the offenses nor the disposition of the charges. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether West committed a substantive violation of his probation per his August 28, 2008 charges in Broward County for riding a bike with no/improper light and possession of cannabis. If the record shows that West committed no substantive violation, then the trial court shall correct West’s sentence to comply with section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2018).
Additionally, the record does not indicate whether West’s 2009 plea agreement was a global plea, which resulted in the ten-year sentence. On remand, the trial court shall determine the scope of West’s 2009 plea agreement.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flagg v. State, 179 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…st 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 West v. State, 129 So. 3d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). See also Hudson v. State, 989 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The appellant argues that his 2010 violations were all technical violations; therefore, the six-year sentencing cap applies, rendering his concurrent 25-ye…
-
Gianni Passino v. State, 174 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…he was initially sentenced as a youthful offender. See § 958.14, Fla. .Stat. (2000) (limiting commitment of youthful offender to lesser of six years or the maximum sentence for a “technical or nonsub-stantive violation” of probation); West v. State, 129 So. 3d 1155, 1156-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (youthful offender loses the benefit of the six-year cap if he commits a “substantive violation” of his probation, with a “substantive violation” being defined as “ ‘a violation premised on the com-' mission of a separate…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Waymon M. Swilley v. State, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Luscomb v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)