KENDRICK JERMAINE WALKER, 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.
Walker appealed the revocation of his youthful offender probation and resulting sentences across five circuit court cases. The court affirmed the revocation itself but reversed and remanded on three grounds: the trial court failed to continue Walker's youthful offender designation, improperly entered grand theft convictions without a plea, and stated incorrect probation violations in the written order.
The court held that once a youthful offender sentence is imposed, that designation must be continued upon resentencing for probation violation; grand theft convictions without a plea must be stricken; and the written revocation order must reflect the actual violation found at the hearing (condition 8, not conditions 1 and 6).
[1] A trial court must continue a defendant's youthful offender designation upon resentencing for a violation of probation.
[2] Grand theft convictions and sentences must be stricken from written judgments and sentences when the defendant did not enter a plea to the charge.
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 trial court imposes a youthful offender sentence, the court must continue that status upon resentencing for a violation of probation.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that youthful offender designation must be maintained through probation revocation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was a youthful offender whose probation was revoked. At the revocation hearing, the trial court found Walker violated condition 8 of his probat…
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 Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
In Kendrick Jermaine Walker’s appeal of the revocation of his youthful offender probation and resulting sentences in five circuit court cases, defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This court struck the Anders brief and directed the parties to address three issues.1 In its brief, the State has properly conceded error on all three issues. Although we affirm the revocation of Walker’s probation, we reverse the revocation order and sentences and remand for their correction. In addition, we direct the trial court to strike Walker’s judgments and sentences for grand theft in circuit court cases 06-CF-21423 and 06-CF-22456.
First, the trial court erred in failing to continue Walker’s youthful offender designation upon the revocation of his probation. Once a trial court imposes a youthful offender sentence, the court must continue that status upon resentencing for *1197a violation of probation. See Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse the sentences and remand for the trial court to correct the sentences to reflect Walker’s youthful offender designation.
Second, Walker did not enter a plea to grand theft in case numbers 06-CF-21423 and 06-CF-22456. Therefore, the grand theft convictions and sentences in those two cases must be stricken from the written judgments and sentences.
Third, the written order revoking Walker’s probation states that Walker was found in violation of conditions 1 and 6. However, at the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing, the trial court found Walker in violation of condition 8 of his probation, and that finding is supported by the evidence. Thus, we reverse the revocation order and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order reflecting that Walker violated condition 8 of his probation.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- LEE v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)