JASON DANIEL TAYLOR, 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.
Jason Daniel Taylor appealed his conviction for dealing in stolen property and his sentence of ten years in prison followed by four years of drug offender probation. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the drug offender probation component, finding Taylor ineligible under Florida law because his sentencing scoresheet total was 181 points, exceeding the 60-point threshold required for such probation.
The court affirmed Taylor's conviction but reversed the drug offender probation sentence, finding him ineligible because he scored 181 points on his sentencing scoresheet, exceeding the maximum 60 points allowed for non-enumerated nonviolent felonies under section 948.20(1), Florida Statutes.
[1] A defendant is ineligible for drug offender probation if their Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet total sentence points exceed sixty and they were not convicted of a spe…
[2] A trial court errs by imposing drug offender probation when the defendant's sentencing scoresheet total exceeds sixty points and the conviction does not fall within the s…
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“Section 948.20(1), Florida Statutes (2014), sets forth the specific circumstances under which a defendant may be placed on drug offender probation.”
Establishes the statutory framework governing drug offender probation eligibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was convicted of dealing in stolen property, a second-degree felony, following an open plea. The trial court sentenced him to ten years in pris…
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.
Following the denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw his open plea, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty on the sole count of dealing in stolen property, a second-degree felony,1 and sentenced him to serve ten years in prison, to be followed by four years of drug offender probation. In this direct appeal, Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence. We reject Appellant’s various arguments for reversal of the conviction without further discussion.
However, we agree with Appellant, and the State has conceded, that the trial court erred by placing Appellant on drug offender probation.2 Section 948.20(1), Florida Statutes (2014), sets forth the specific circumstances under which a defendant may be placed on drug offender probation. Because Appellant was not convicted of one of the specific crimes described in the statute for which drug offender probation is authorized, he could only be placed on drug offender probation following his open plea if he committed a nonviolent felony as defined in this statute and his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet total sentence points were sixty points or fewer. See § 948.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Appellant scored 181 sentencing points on his scoresheet and was therefore ineligible to receive drug offender probation. See State v. Winbush, 121 So.3d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that a defendant who scored more than sixty points on his sentencing scoresheet and was not convicted of an offense specifically referenced in the drug offender probation statute was ineligible to receive drug offender probation).
On remand, the trial court may resentence Appellant to regular probation and may also impose such special conditions as it deems appropriate, provided that they are reasonably related to the offense and promote Appellant’s rehabilitation or are *1253for the protection of the public. See Redmond v. State, 970 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Accordingly, Appellant’s conviction is affirmed; that part of his sentence imposing drug offender probation is reversed; and this matter is remanded for resentencing.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE REVERSED, IN PART; CAUSE REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…te, 77 So. 3d 760, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Drug offender probation is permissible only where a defendant (1) "committed a nonviolent felony as defined in this statute" and (2) scored sixty total points or fewer on his scoresheet. Taylor v. State, 227 So. 3d 1252, 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing § 948.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2014)). A "nonviolent felony" is "a third[-]degree felony violation under chapter 810 or any other felony offense that is not a forcible felony as defined in [section] 776.08." § 948.20(1)…
-
Folsom v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Redmond v. State, 970 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. Winbush, 121 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)