Hill v. State, BE-78
| Decision Date | 10 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BE-78,BE-78 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 847 Timothy Leon HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We grant appellee's Motion for Rehearing, vacate our opinion filed February 6, 1986, and affirm the trial court's sentence of five years incarceration which the court imposed after revoking the appellant's community control in October, 1984, the appellant having earlier received a split sentence in June, 1980, as a youthful offender under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes.
The Florida Supreme Court in Brooks v. State, 478 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1985), has settled the question of whether the sentencing court, upon revocation of community control under Chapter 958, is limited to a term of incarceration of four years as held by earlier appellate court decisions. See Clem v. State, 462 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ellis v. State, 436 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
The Brooks decision has, we believe, been properly interpreted as authorizing, upon revocation, resentencing by imposition of any sentence which the trial court could have originally imposed without regard to the youthful offender act. See Johnson v. State, 482 So.2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 1
AFFIRMED.
1 Inasmuch as the appellant was resentenced in 1984, we do not address the amended version of Section 958.14, Chapter 85-288, Section 24, Laws of Florida, particularly since this appellant was resentenced to not longer than six years. Section 958.14, as amended in 1985, is reproduced as follows, the underlined portions constituting the language added by Chapter 85-288, supra:
958.14 Violation of probation or community control program.--A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06(1); provided that no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for such violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnette v. State, 89-1037
...reference to the youthful offender provisions of Chapter 958. Johnson v. State, 482 So.2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hill v. State, 486 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).7 This holding was also approved in Lane v. State, 470 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).8 The supreme court in Franklin v. State, ......
-
Poore v. State
...1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986); Crosby v. State, 487 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Hill v. State, 486 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and other cases are youthful offender cases in which the courts were concerned with the applicability of the four and six ye......
-
Dixon v. State, 87-1795
...478 So.2d 1052 (The case involved a resentencing which occurred prior to the effective date of the 1985 amendment.); Hill v. State, 486 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (The court specifically stated that the case presented to it required application of the pre-1985 statute. The court pointed......
-
Franklin v. State, 87-522
...Statutes, without reference to the youthful offender provisions. See also Brooks v. State, 478 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Hill v. State, 486 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Crosby v. State, 487 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Although the Youthful Offender Act was amended in 1985 to provide that ......