DWAYNE D. GADSON, 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.
Dwayne Gadson appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting 24.75-month prison sentence. The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation but reversed and remanded because the sentencing order failed to include Gadson's youthful offender status, which must be maintained upon resentencing for probation violations.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation but held that the sentencing court must maintain the defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing for a violation of probation, even when the violation was substantive. The court reversed and remanded for entry of an amended order reflecting the youthful offender status.
[1] A sentencing court must maintain a defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing for a probation violation, even if the violation was substantive.
[2] A motion to correct a sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is deemed denied if no written order is filed within the required sixty-day time…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[The] sentencing court must maintain the defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.”
States the core holding that youthful offender status must be preserved during resentencing for probation violations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDwayne Gadson was on probation when he violated its terms. Following the probation violation, the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a 24.7…
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 Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Dwayne Gadson appeals the order revoking his probation and imposing a 24.75-month prison sentence for his underlying offenses. We affirm the revocation of probation. We reverse the written sentence and remand for the trial court to enter an amended order reflecting Mr. Gadsoris youthful offender status. The written judgment and sentence did not include a youthful offender designation. “[The] sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding youthful offender status cannot be revoked even for committing substantive probation violation); Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding youthful offender status could not be revoked upon violation of probation for a substantive violation involving a new law offense); Mosley v. State, 77 So.3d 877, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same).
After sentencing, the trial court orally granted Mr. Gadsoris subsequent motion to correct sentence, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2), to include a youthful offender designation; no written order was filed within the required sixty-day time period. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Consequently, the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion is deemed denied. See id. The State concedes error.
*497We affirm the revocation of probation but remand for the trial court to enter a written order reflecting the youthful offender designation.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…ntive probation violation, the defendant retains his or her youthful offender "status" along with the other attendant benefits of youthful offender sentencing. See, e.g. , Christian , 84 So. 3d at 442 ; Blacker , 49 So. 3d at 788 ; Gadson v. State , 160 So. 3d 496, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Jacques v. State , 95 So. 3d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; Hudson v. State , 989 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). It was the Arnette majority's statement that a defendant always retains his or her "youthful offender…
-
Jamon D. Ware v. State, 197 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Godson v. State, 160 So. 3d 496, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Yegge for the foregoing proposition). In addition, a defendant’s written sentence must comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Mr. Ware…
Authorities Cited
- Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Letroy D. Mosley v. State, 77 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Vantine v. State, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)