JUSTIN KENDALL
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.
The appellant challenged his adjudication and sentences in two cases, arguing issues of sentencing and probation violation. The court found no arguable merit in the appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences, but remanded for entry of a written revocation order that was missing from the trial court record.
The court affirmed the adjudications and sentences, rejecting the appellant's challenge to loss of youthful offender status. However, the court remanded the 2015 case to the trial court to enter a written order revoking community control and specifying the conditions violated.
[1] A defendant does not retain youthful offender status when the defendant violates probation conditions and receives an adult sentence.
[2] When revoking community control, a trial court must enter a written order specifying the conditions that were violated.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was adjudicated and sentenced in two cases (2015 and 2016). In the 2015 case, the appellant challenged his loss of youthful offender sta…
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 Anders Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Justin Kendall, Lake City, pro se. No appearance filed for appellee. PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we have reviewed the entire record on appeal and brief filed by counsel seeking to withdraw. There are no issues of arguable merit in the two appeals before this Court, arising from lower court cases numbered 15-5828CF10A and 16-009287CF10A. We specifically reject appellant’s sentencing challenge in the 2015 case, based on the authorities recognizing that a defendant is not entitled to retain his youthful offender status after his violation of probation and adult sentencing. See Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097, 1102 (Fla. 2018); Granger v. State, 252 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Therefore, we affirm the adjudications and sentences.
However, the record demonstrates that the trial court did not file a written order revoking community control in case number 15-5828CF10A. This requires remand to the trial court for entry of a written order revoking community control and specifying the conditions violated. Musto v. State, 174 So. 3d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Affirmed, but remanded for entry of written revocation order in case number 15-5828CF10A, consistent with this opinion.
GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staples v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Sharrod Christopher Dunston v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)
- Musto v. State, 174 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Granger v. State, 252 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)