ROBERT D. PETERSON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to specify the condition of probation violated in the written judgment and by not addressing the defendant's youthful offender status upon resentencing.
The defendant was found to have violated his probation by committing a new offense. The trial court entered a judgment and sentence without specifying…
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
Robert D. Peterson (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, which were entered by the trial court based on his violation of probation. Concluding that the trial court erred in entering the judgment and sentence, we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions.
First, although the trial court orally pronounced that the defendant had violated his probation by committing a new offense, the trial court failed to set forth this finding in the written judgment. Therefore, we must vacate the judgment and remand for entry of a judgment specifying the condition of probation that was violated.
In addition, the trial court erred in failing to address the defendant’s youthful offender status. The defendant was originally sentenced as a youthful offender for committing the crime of robbery with a weapon, receiving a two-year prison sentence followed by a term of four years of probation. Upon revocation of his probation for committing a new offense, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of thirty years’ imprisonment. However, the trial court did not address his status as a youthful offender. When a youthful offender commits a substantive violation of his probation, the trial court can impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum. Smith v. State, 143 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, the defendant’s youthful offender status must be continued upon resentencing after a violation of probation. Id.; see also Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s judgment and sentence, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…v. State , 159 So. 3d 386, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding youthful offender status cannot be revoked even for committing a substantive probation violation); Cooper v. State , 235 So. 3d 1034, 1035-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (same); Peterson v. State , 176 So. 3d 1015, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (same); Gadson , 160 So. 3d at 496 (same); St. Cyr v. State , 106 So. 3d 487, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Josey v. State , 128 So. 3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same); Lachenauer v. State , 117 So. 3d 880, 880-81 (…
Authorities Cited
- Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)