Dunbar v. State, 94-02975
| Decision Date | 08 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-02975,94-02975 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2698 Isaiah DUNBAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Isaiah Dunbar, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Isaiah Dunbar challenges consecutive six year sentences imposed by the trial court upon revocation of his probation. We reverse and remand for imposition of concurrent sentences.
Dunbar was originally sentenced as a youthful offender to concurrent terms of four years of probation followed by two years of community control on two counts of attempted second-degree murder. Thereafter, his probation was revoked for failing to pay the costs of supervision, for not reporting, for not seeking employment, and for not trying to get a GED. Dunbar was sentenced to consecutive six year terms of imprisonment with credit for time served on count I only.
Since Dunbar's probation was revoked for technical violations, he can only be sentenced to a total of six years. State v. Arnette, 604 So.2d 482 (Fla.1992); Young v. State, 654 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Darden v. State, 641 So.2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). A youthful offender can be sentenced in excess of six years after revocation of probation if the violation was substantive. See Sec. 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1993); Reeves v. State, 605 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The consecutive sentences are reversed with directions to impose concurrent sentences with the appropriate credit for time served.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Meeks
...5th DCA 1997); Hill v. State, 692 So.2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Johnson v. State, 678 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reeves v. State, 605 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). While no Florida decision until Meeks had undertaken the task of specif......
-
Meeks v. State, 1D97-2905.
...burglary, possession of burglary tools and resisting arrest without violence determined to be substantive violations); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (youthful offender's failure to pay the costs of supervision of probation, for not reporting, for not seeking employment,......
-
Goldwire v. State
...offender may be sentenced as a non-youthful offender for commission of a substantive violation while on probation); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). Accordingly, it is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether a youthful offender should be sentenced ......
-
Crosby v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n
... ... 3d DCA 1992), rev. dismissed, 624 So.2d 267 (Fla.1993)(employee's refusal to state that a compulsory drug test was voluntary "is not employment misconduct by even a broad reading of ... ...