Carroll v. State, ZZ-223

Decision Date21 April 1982
Docket NumberNo. ZZ-223,ZZ-223
PartiesJames D. CARROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

PER CURIAM.

Carroll seeks rehearing and contends this Court erred in improperly enhancing his sentence of twenty years for second degree murder and in affirming the trial court's denial of youthful offender status. His motion is well taken regarding the enhancement of his sentence and rehearing is granted as to that issue. We deny, however, the motion regarding the trial court's denial of youthful offender status.

Carroll correctly asserts that enhancement and reclassification of felonies pursuant to Section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1979), is proper only against the crime charged, rather than the crime for which he was ultimately convicted. In this case, he was charged with first degree murder, a capital felony. He ultimately pleaded guilty to and was adjudged guilty of second degree murder, a first degree felony. Under the statute, it is not possible to enhance the crime charged, a capital felony. Therefore, the trial court's sentence of twenty years was a proper sentence in this case.

Carroll incorrectly argues, however, that he is entitled to youthful offender classification. At the plea hearing of May 15, 1980, he pleaded guilty to second degree murder in this case and pleaded nolo contendere to attempted second degree murder, a second degree felony, in another case. The trial judge adjudicated him guilty of both offenses and postponed sentencing until a later date. Therefore, at the time of sentencing, he had previously been convicted of a felony (attempted second degree murder) other than the one for which he sought sentencing as a youthful offender (second degree murder).

While not being precluded from youthful offender status by the contemporaneous conviction of two felonies, Carroll is excluded from mandatory classification as a youthful offender. State v. Goodson, 403 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1981). Therefore, whether to grant youthful offender status to him was discretionary with the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial since no abuse of discretion has been shown.

This Court's opinion filed on February 9, 1982, is vacated and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Cooper v. State, AR-462
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1984
    ...affirm the trial court's holding that the offenses are first degree felonies and recede from this court's holdings in Carroll v. State, 412 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA All necessarily included offenses and lesser included offenses are "char......
  • Overfelt v. State, 81-2300
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1983
    ...case is presently pending on rehearing before the Supreme Court of Florida.2 We also note with interest the holding in Carroll v. State, 412 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Carroll looks at Section 775.087 and makes the distinction between the reclassification section which uses the words, "......
  • Miller v. State, 82-962
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1983
    ...a minimum term of three calendar years. Section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). On appeal, the defendant cites Carroll v. State, 412 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), for the proposition that only those offenses which are expressly charged in the information--as opposed to those offens......
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1984
    ...Appeal, Fourth District, in Miller v. State, 438 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), which directly expressly conflicts with Carroll v. State, 412 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Since our acceptance of jurisdiction in the present case on the basis of conflict, the First District, in an en banc op......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT