Ross v. State

819 So. 2d 924, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8568, 2002 WL 1338042
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ross v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 760 So. 2d 214
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 20, 2002·No. No. 1D01-1291·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sentence is not illegal because his total period of incarceration does not exceed the six-year maximum penalty under the youthful offender statute. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Arnette, 604 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1992) (“[W]e conclude that, even though a youthful offender had been imprisoned for four years, the legislature always intended to authorize reimprisonment up to a total imprisonment of six years when community control is violated.”). Cf., e.g., Johnson v. State, 736 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Without the credit for time served on this youthful offender sentence as announced by the trial judge, the term of seventy-two months’ imprisonment in addition to the forty-eight months’ imprisonment already served exceeded the legal maximum of six years. This is an illegal sentence_”). In addition, the written sentencing orders in the record reflect jail credit for the number of days claimed by appellant in his pro se brief.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN, C.J., ERVIN and KAHN, JJ„ concur.

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

Ross v. State, 819 So. 2d 924, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8568, 2002 WL 1338042 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

819 So. 2d 924 (Ross v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Arnette
604 So. 2d 482 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Johnson v. State
736 So. 2d 708 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)