OCTAVIUS SCOTT, 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.
Octavius Scott appeals the summary denial of his motion alleging his habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence is illegal because one predicate offense occurred when he was a juvenile. The court affirmed, holding that a youthful offender sentence constitutes an adult sanction and may properly serve as a predicate offense for habitualization.
A youthful offender sentence is an adult sanction and may properly be considered a predicate offense for habitualization. Therefore, Scott's HFO sentence is not illegal based on his claim that one predicate offense occurred when he was a juvenile.
[1] A youthful offender sentence may properly be considered a predicate offense for habitualization.
[2] A youthful offender sentence is an adult sanction for purposes of habitual offender sentencing.
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“A youthful offender sentence is an adult sanction.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that youthful offender sentences are treated as adult sanctions for purposes of predicate offense consideration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft following a jury trial. He was sentenced on April 9, 2009, to twelve years' imprisonment…
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Octavius Scott timely appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800 motion alleging that his sentence is illegal. Scott was convicted, following a jury trial, of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. He was sentenced on April 9, 2009, to twelve years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender (HFO) and time served, respectively. Although the trial court found the claim successive to an earlier rule 3.800 motion, Scott correctly points out that he did not raise this exact claim. Nevertheless, we affirm.
Scott contends that his HFO sentence is illegal because he did not have the requisite predicate offenses in order to be habit-ualized as an HFO. He alleges that one of the predicate offenses used to habitualize him could not qualify him as an HFO, because he was a juvenile at the time he committed that offense. It appears from the record, however, that he was sentenced as a youthful offender. A youthful offender sentence may properly be considered a predicate offense for habitualization. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (2008). “A youthful offender sentence is an adult sanction.” Crain v. State, 653 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cooper v. State, 465 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); accord State v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1111, 1113 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“A youthful offender sentence is an adult sanction under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes, not a juvenile sanction under Chapter 985, Florida Statutes.”); Whitfield v. Singletary, 730 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“It is true that the defendant was sentenced as a youthful offender for this crime, but that does not preclude its consideration as a predicate offense”). Therefore, he has not shown that the predicate offense could not be considered, and thus he has shown no illegality in his HFO sentence.
Affirmed.
WARNER, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitfield v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- State v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Cooper v. State, 465 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Crain v. State, 653 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)