LORENZO WILLIAM SILER, 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.
Siler appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error in a probation revocation case. The trial court revoked his youthful offender probation and sentenced him to six years imprisonment, but Siler argues the court believed it had no discretion and was required to impose that specific sentence. The appellate court agrees the trial court operated under a mistaken understanding of its sentencing options under the youthful offender statute.
The trial court was indeed mistaken about its sentencing discretion. When revoking probation imposed pursuant to the youthful offender statute, a defendant may be sentenced to any sentence that could have originally been imposed, including any combined sentence of probation and imprisonment not exceeding six years, or any sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six years. The case is remanded for resentencing so the court can exercise its full discretion.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to correct sentencing error is reviewed de novo.
[2] When a trial court revokes probation imposed under the youthful offender statute, the defendant may be sentenced to any sentence that could have originally been imposed,…
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“When a trial court revokes probation that has been imposed pursuant to the youthful offender statute, the defendant may be sentenced to any sentence that could have originally been imposed pursuant to the statute.”
Establishes the legal standard for sentencing options available upon probation revocation in youthful offender cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2011, Siler pleaded no contest to four counts of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced as a youthful offender to two years' imprisonment followe…
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
Lorenzo William Siler appeals the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. He argues that the trial court was under a mistaken belief of law when it imposed his sentence. We agree.
In 2011, Siler pleaded no contest to four counts of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced as a youthful offender to two years’ imprisonment followed by four years’ probation. After his release from prison in 2013, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against Siler. He admitted to the technical violations. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel requested reinstatement of Siler’s probation, and the State did not object to this request. The trial court expressed its belief that it could either reinstate Siler’s probation or sentence him to six years’ imprisonment. Ultimately, the trial court revoked Siler’s probation and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Based on the trial court’s comments at the sentencing hearing, Siler filed a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing that the court improper*1127ly believed that it had no choice but to sentence him to six years’ imprisonment if it revoked his probation. The trial court denied the motion; this appeals follows.
A motion to correct sentencing error is reviewed de novo. State v. Flynn, 95 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Our review of the court’s statements at the sentencing hearing reveals that the court did not appear to be aware of all of its sentencing options. When a trial court revokes probation that has been imposed pursuant to the youthful offender statute, the defendant may be sentenced to any sentence that could have originally been imposed pursuant to the statute. Hudson v. State, 989 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). This includes any combined sentence of probation and imprisonment, as long as it does not exceed six years, or any sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six years. § 958.04(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).
Because the trial court did not consider all of the sentencing options, we remand for resentencing. We recognize that the trial court may impose the same sentence on remand; however, the court needs to exercise its discretion and consider all of the youthful offender sentencing options before imposing sentence. Goldwire v. State, 73 So.3d 844, 846-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROWE, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 201 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…rm of years not exceeding life” and life felonies, punishable by “a term of imprisonment for life or for a term of years not less than 30.”). A trial court’s misapprehension of its sentencing authority is reversible error. See, e.g., Siler v. State, 135 So. 3d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in denying a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion where it mistakenly believed it ■ had no authority to impose youthful offender sentence); Bennett v. State, 24 So. 3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (revers…
Authorities Cited
- Treymone Goldwire v. State, 73 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Wallace v. State, 989 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Shallist Thomas Hudson v. State, 989 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- State v. Flynn, 95 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)