Allen v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71495,71495 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 375,526 So.2d 69 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 375 Vincent Lorenzo ALLEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Judith A. Quandt of Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We review Allen v. State, 515 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), based on certified conflict with Lane v. State, 470 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The issue presented is whether a youth sentenced for multiple felonies under the Youthful Offender Act may be sentenced consecutively so that his total commitment exceeds the six-year youthful offender maximum prescribed in section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1979).
Petitioner pled guilty to grand theft and bail bond jumping and was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1979), to four years imprisonment followed by two years of community control for each offense, the sentences to run consecutively.
On postconviction appeal, the First District agreed with petitioner that the sentences were excessive under State v. Milbry, 476 So.2d 1281 (Fla.1985), which held that a youthful offender cannot be sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum sentence an adult could receive for the same crime. Because grand theft and bail bond jumping each carried a maximum penalty of five years, the district court held that petitioner's total commitment on each charge must be reduced to not more than five years.
The district court rejected, however, petitioner's argument that the imposition of consecutive sentences impermissibly exceeded the six-year maximum prescribed by section 958.05(2). The court adhered to its earlier decision in Harmon v. State, 397 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein it held that a defendant may be sentenced consecutively whenever separate sentences may be imposed for two or more offenses. Id. at 1219.
We disagree and find this case controlled by this Court's analysis in State v. Goodson, 403 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1981). In Goodson, this Court held the existence of multiple felony convictions does not preclude a defendant from being classified as a youthful offender but merely excludes him from mandatory classification as such. Id. at 1340. In reaching this conclusion, we specifically considered section 958.05(2), * which provides, in pertinent part 958.05 Judicial disposition of youthful offenders.--If the court classifies a person a youthful offender, in lieu of other criminal penalties authorized by law, the court shall dispose of the criminal case as follows:
....
(2) The court may commit the youthful offender to the custody of the department for a period not to exceed 6 years. The sentence of the court shall specify a period of not more than the first 4 years to be served by imprisonment and a period of not more than 2 years to be served in a community control program. (Emphasis supplied.)
We construed this language as "mandate[ing] that a trial judge not commit a youthful offender to the custody of the Department of Corrections for more than 6 years." Id. at 1339. In so doing, we specifically recognized that a defendant sentenced under the act who had been "convicted of more than one felony would go unpunished for the other felonies if he received the maximum penalty for the first felony." Id. at 1339-40.
We adhere to this construction. To interpret the Youthful Offender Act in any other way would violate the express intent of the legislature to provide a "sentencing alternative," see section 958.021, Florida Statutes (1985), that is more stringent than the juvenile system and less harsh than the adult system. See A Report Submitted to the House Committee on Corrections, Probation and Parole on Senate Bill 165 (May 10, 1978). Clearly, the limitation on the time period for confinement is a primary benefit of the youthful offender alternative. Hence, imposition of consecutive sentences resulting in a total commitment of more than six years would thwart the purpose of the Act.
Additionally, we note the Florida Youthful Offender Act was patterned after the Federal Youth Corrections Act and the Alabama Youthful Offender Act. Senate Corrections, Probation and Parole Committee, Final Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Statement on Senate Bill 165 (April 25, 1978). Analogous provisions of those acts have been interpreted consistent with our position here. See U.S. v. Ortiz, 513 F.2d 198 (9th Cir.) (where defendant committed under Youth Corrections Act on one count, court held it was inconsistent with purpose of Act to treat defendant as adult on second count and impose additional consecutive sentence), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 843, 96 S.Ct. 78, 46 L.Ed.2d 64 (1975); Ex parte Jackson, 415 So.2d 1169 (Ala.1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watts
...Clearly, the limitation on the time period for confinement is a primary benefit of the youthful offender alternative. Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla.1988). See also Reams, 528 So.2d at 559 (Ervin, J., specially concurring). Our conclusion is fortified by the timing of the 1985 amendm......
-
Schebel v. State, 97-2879.
...would constitute "illegal" sentences, and his motion could be construed as one made pursuant to rule 3.800(a).2 See Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988) (consecutive sentencing of youthful offenders to more than six years is prohibited); State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla.1990) (court li......
-
Hastings v. State, 1 Div. 682
...John G., 60 A.D.2d 919, 401 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1978). But see Allen v. State, 515 So.2d 256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987), quashed in part, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988); Harmon v. State, 397 So.2d 1218 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981). (The conflict in the Florida district court decisions was certified to the Florida......
-
Moreno v. State, 87-1930
...to be inconsistent with Lane v. State, 470 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and especially with the view of Lane as approved in Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988); Franklin now appears to be inconsistent with Allen. See Judge Ervin's special concurrence to Reams v. State, 528 So.2d 558 (Fl......