Mathurin v. State
This text of 128 So. 3d 251 (Mathurin 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.
Opinion
Appellant appeals the revocation of probation and consequent sentence. The State concedes “the trial court mistakenly-failed to resentence Appellant as a youthful offender, even though Appellant had initially been sentenced as a youthful offender on all three of his cases.” As noted by the State, it is well settled in this court that “[o]nee a circuit court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control.” Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also St. Cyr v. State, 106 So.3d 487, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Knite v. State, 102 So.3d 691, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Rogers v. State, 972 So.2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing error by imposing a youthful offender sentence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
128 So. 3d 251, 2013 WL 6478962, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathurin-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.