Dale Webster v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dale Webster v. State of Florida

190 So. 3d 692, 2016 WL 2342918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2016

Docket4D15-4280

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 692 (Dale Webster v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dale Webster v. State of Florida, 190 So. 3d 692, 2016 WL 2342918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6865 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dale Webster appeals an order granting in part and denying in part his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm, but remand for the trial court to enter an amended sentencing order.

In case number 99-17499CF, Webster entered a no contest plea to kidnapping and aggravated battery. ’ He was sentenced as a youthful offender to eighteen months in prison followed by four years of probation. Webster subsequently violated his probation by committing new offenses. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty and fifteen years in prison.

. In ease number 01-19317CF, Webster was convicted by a jury of felony battery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison as a violent habitual felony offender, with a five-year .mandatory minimum as a prison releasee reoffender, consecutive to his sentence in 99-17499CF.

■ In his motion, which was filed in both cases, Webster argued that his sentence in 99-17499CF is illegal because the court improperly revoked his youthful, offender status. The trial court agreed and granted the motion as to that case. The court ordered the Department of Corrections to classify Webster as a youthful offender, as to case number 99-17499CF, but did not enter an amended sentencing order. The court denied the motion as to case number 01-19317CF.

We affirm the trial court’s order. Webster is entitled to maintain his youthful offender designation in case number 99-17499CF for classification purposes. See St. Cyr v. State, 106 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). . He is not entitled to be *693 designated as a youthful offender in 01-19317CF because he was never sentenced as a youthful offender in that case.. See Boynton v. State, 896 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), rev. denied, 134 So.3d 446 (Fla.2014).

On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter an amended sentencing order-in case number 99-17499CF reflecting Webster’s youthful offender designation.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Dale Webster appeals an order granting in part and denying in part his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm, but remand for the trial court to enter an amended sentencing order.

In case number 99-17499CF, Webster entered a no contest plea to kidnapping and aggravated battery. ’ He was sentenced as a youthful offender to eighteen months in prison followed by four years of probation. Webster subsequently violated his probation by committing new offenses. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty and fifteen years in prison.

. In ease number 01-19317CF, Webster was convicted by a jury of felony battery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison as a violent habitual felony offender, with a five-year .mandatory minimum as a prison releasee reoffender, consecutive to his sentence in 99-17499CF.

■ In his motion, which was filed in both cases, Webster argued that his sentence in 99-17499CF is illegal because the court improperly revoked his youthful, offender status. The trial court agreed and granted the motion as to that case. The court ordered the Department of Corrections to classify Webster as a youthful offender, as to case number 99-17499CF, but did not enter an amended sentencing order. The court denied the motion as to case number 01-19317CF.

We affirm the trial court’s order. Webster is entitled to maintain his youthful offender designation in case number 99-17499CF for classification purposes. See St. Cyr v. State, 106 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). . He is not entitled to be *693 designated as a youthful offender in 01-19317CF because he was never sentenced as a youthful offender in that case.. See Boynton v. State, 896 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), rev. denied, 134 So.3d 446 (Fla.2014).

On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter an amended sentencing order-in case number 99-17499CF reflecting Webster’s youthful offender designation.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 692, 2016 WL 2342918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-webster-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack