Blackmon v. State, 91-1651
| Decision Date | 05 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1651,91-1651 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 587 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D919 Lekisha R. BLACKMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Chris W. Hoeg, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Wendy S. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant raises two points on appeal: (1) Whether the trial court complied with section 39.059, Florida Statutes, in sentencing appellant as an adult, and (2) whether the trial court improperly determined that it was required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence although it affirmatively appears from the record that appellant may qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.021, Florida Statutes.
We find no merit as to issue I. See Troutman v. State, 603 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We do find, however, when the record affirmatively reflects that appellant may qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.021, Florida Statutes, and the trial court affirmatively states on the record that it feels that the mandatory minimum sentence may be too harsh in light of appellant's age, but that it has no sentencing discretion, that the trial court should have the opportunity to consider whether it wishes to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 958.04, Florida Statutes. See Ellis v. State, 475 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Morley v. State
-
Holmes v. State, 93-2179
...option was available. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. See, Blackmon v. State, 616 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Notwithstanding our remand, we emphasize that the lower court is under no obligation to sentence appellant under the Y......