JONATHAN GOFF, 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 a defendant's youthful offender status must be maintained upon resentencing for a probation violation, and revoking it is reversible error.
Jonathan David Goff appealed his judgments and sentences following the revocation of his probation. He argued the circuit court failed to continue his…
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
Jonathan David Goff appeals his judgments and sentences following the revocation of his probation in circuit court case numbers 12-CF-005317, 12-CF-017376, 12-CF-017869, and 12-CF-017927. We affirm the revocation of Goffs probation without further comment but reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence him as a youthful offender.
On appeal, Goff alleges that the circuit court failed to continue his designation as a youthful offender after revoking his probation. Goff properly preserved this issue by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion requesting that the trial court “file an amended- order and amended sentencing paperwork that correctly reflects Mr. Goffs youthful offender designation.” Although the trial court ultimately granted Goffs rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, the order was rendered after the expiration of the required sixty-day period and was therefore a nullity. See Miran v. State, 46 So.3d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The State properly conceded error on appeal.
This court has consistently held that a defendant’s youthful offender status must be maintained upon resentencing for a violation of probation, even -if the violation is substantive, and that revoking it is reversible error. See Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Mosley v. State, 77 So.3d 877, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to amend Goffs sentences in the above case numbers to reflect his youthful offender status.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA and'SALARIO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chauncey Davis v. State, 223 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…rol. Nevertheless, Davis is presently not entitled to relief because he did not preserve this error for review by either objecting at sentencing or by timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Cf. Goff v. State, 197 So. 3d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (finding that defendant properly preserved for appellate review the trial court’s failure to continue his designation as a youthful offender after revoking his probation by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(…
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. State, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- 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)
- Seyed R. Miran v. State, 46 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)