Dunsford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunsford v. State

757 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5216, 2000 WL 552525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 757 So. 2d 580 (Dunsford v. State) 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

Dunsford v. State, 757 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5216, 2000 WL 552525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender and placed on probation. He violated his probation by failing to timely file accurate monthly reports and failing to notify his probation officer of his change of residence. We conclude that the issue was preserved below and that, upon finding that appellant had violated his probation, the circuit court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive terms in excess of those permitted by the Youthful Offender Act, see section 953.14, Florida Statutes (1991), based on those technical violations. See, Meeks v. State, 754 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). See also, State v. Arnette, 604 So.2d 482 (Fla.1992); O’Neal v. State, 667 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender and placed on probation. He violated his probation by failing to timely file accurate monthly reports and failing to notify his probation officer of his change of residence. We conclude that the issue was preserved below and that, upon finding that appellant had violated his probation, the circuit court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive terms in excess of those permitted by the Youthful Offender Act, see section 953.14, Florida Statutes (1991), based on those technical violations. See, Meeks v. State, 754 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). See also, State v. Arnette, 604 So.2d 482 (Fla.1992); O’Neal v. State, 667 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5216, 2000 WL 552525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunsford-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack