BRANDON ROSHAWN GRANGER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court is not required to maintain a defendant's youthful offender status when resentencing for a substantive probation violation and imposing a sentence in excess of the six-year youthful offender cap.
[1] When a youthful offender commits a substantive violation of probation and a trial court imposes a sentence in excess of the six-year youthful offender cap, the sentence b…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“when a youthful offender commits a substantive violation of probation and the trial court elects to impose a sentence in excess of the six-year cap, the sentence necessarily becomes an adult [Criminal Punishment Code] sentence such that the defendant does not retain his or her 'youthful offender status.'”
Eustache v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S291a (Fla. July 12, 2018)
Brandon Granger received a youthful offender sentence. He subsequently violated his probation, and the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence.…
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
KUNTZ, J.
Brandon Granger appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He argues the imposition of a twelve-year sentence after his probation violation is illegal because he committed only a technical violation, and the new sentence exceeds his original youthful offender sentence. We affirm.
We write to note that this Court’s opinions have consistently required a court to maintain a defendant’s youthful offender status even when being resentenced on a substantive probation violation. See, e.g., Larkins v. State, 159 So. 3d 386, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023, 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); St. Cyr v. State, 106 So. 3d 487, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Lachenauer v. State, 117 So. 3d 880, 880-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 41 So. 3d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Rogers v. State, 972 So. 2d 1017, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court has now expressly disapproved of each of these cited cases and held that “when a youthful offender commits a substantive violation of probation and the trial court elects to impose a sentence in excess of the six-year cap, the sentence necessarily becomes an adult
2
[Criminal Punishment Code] sentence such that the defendant does not retain his or her ‘youthful offender status.’” Eustache v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S291a (Fla. July 12, 2018). Thus, in this case, the court was not required to maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status on resentencing.
Affirmed. CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendall v. State, 262 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Staples v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Junior Alexis v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)
- Ocelyn ST. CYR v. State, 106 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- MacIer v. In re Est. OF Bessie Giamportone, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Rogers v. State, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Johnson v. State, 41 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Johnie Earl Larkins v. State, 159 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Lachenauer v. State, 117 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Stonecrest Props. Holdings, LLC v. Ilan Weiss, 117 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)