Thompson v. State, 4D06-4196.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D06-4196.,4D06-4196. |
| Citation | 945 So.2d 627 |
| Parties | Jason THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jason Thompson, Indiantown, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
The appellant, pursuant to rule 3.800(a), challenges the sentence imposed after the lower court revoked his youthful offender probation. The judge determined that Thompson committed the crime of possession of cannabis, which the judge found to be a substantial violation of probation, and sentenced Thompson to an eleven-year prison term. Thompson claims the judge violated the principles announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the judge increased his sentence beyond the six-year limit for violations of youthful offender probation, as described in section 958.14, Florida Statutes, by making findings of fact as to the nature of the violation. We disagree and affirm.
Thompson's argument that his sentence is illegal misconstrues both section 958.14 and Apprendi. Section 958.14 restricts a court to a sentence of six years in prison "for a technical or nonsubstantive violation" of the youthful offender probation. However, where the violation is a substantive violation, the punishment cannot be "longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated." § 958.14, Fla. Stat. In essence, there is a six-year cap for technical violations of a youthful offender probation sanction, but no such cap if the defendant committed a substantive violation.
In this case, the lower court concluded Thompson substantively violated his probation by committing the crime of possession of cannabis, as evidenced by a positive drug test. This legal conclusion is supported by precedent. See Henderson v. State, 720 So.2d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) () (citing Robinson v. State, 702 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); see also Buckins v. State, 789 So.2d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (). Because the lower court found a substantive violation, the court was not bound by the six-year cap found in section 958.14.
Further, Apprendi does not apply in this case. There, the supreme court held: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). The key term is "fact," as the jury is not entitled to make legal determinations; questions of law are within the exclusive province of the court. In this case, Thompson incorrectly argues that the determination that the violation is technical or substantive is a "finding of fact" as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rebalko v. City of Coral Springs
......Based on these falsified reports, the State Attorney's Office ("SAO") prosecuted Mr. Rebalko for two years—before the case was finally tossed ...Thompson , 563 U.S. 51, 62, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) (quoting Bryan Cty. , 520 U.S. at 409, ......
-
Rebalko v. City of Coral Springs
...presence was obstructing or impeding [the officer] in the performance of his duty." Wilkerson, 556 So. 2d at 456; see also D.A.W., 945 So. 2d at 627 (no obstruction where the defendant refused to leave thePage 25 scene, even though the defendant was "harassing" someone an officer was arrest......
-
Christian v. State
...(Fla. 1st DCA 2000), approved, 789 So.2d 982 (Fla.2001) ; Swilley v. State, 781 So.2d 458, 460–61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ; Thompson v. State, 945 So.2d 627, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Although not citing to Robinson, the Third District has also repeatedly held that new criminal conduct constitute......
-
Adderly v. State Of Fla.
...petition rather than dismissing it, remand for such an order would be a waste of judicial resources. See generally Thompson v. State, 945 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming dismissal of rule 3.800(a) motion that should have been denied on the merits); Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d ......