JULIO REYNOSOPENA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Julio Reynosopena appealed his adult sentence, arguing the trial court erred in declining to sentence him as a youthful offender under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's sentencing decision, finding the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying youthful offender status.
The trial court did not err in declining youthful offender sentencing. The court properly exercised its discretion by considering Reynosopena's criminal history, the escalating severity of his crimes, his repeated violations of probation, and the absence of deterrent effect from prior juvenile punishments.
[1] A trial court has discretion to determine whether to sentence a defendant as a youthful offender.
[2] A trial court's decision not to sentence a defendant as a youthful offender may be based upon a consideration of the defendant's circumstances and the serious nature of h…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court understood its options under the Florida Youthful Offender Act, Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (2017). See McKinney v. State, 27 So. 3d 160, 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ('[W]e are satisfied that the court's decision not to sentence [a]ppellant as a youthful offender was properly based upon a consideration of [a]ppellant's circumstances and the serious nature of his crimes...')”
Establishes that the trial court properly exercised discretion in declining youthful offender sentencing based on the defendant's circumstances and crime severity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReynosopena pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a person found to have committed a delinquent act and possession of twenty grams or less of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Youthful Offender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Julio Reynosopena, asserts that the trial court erred in not sentencing him as a youthful offender. Appellant pled no contest to charges of possession of a firearm by a person found to have committed a delinquent act and possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis.
The trial court announced at the sentencing hearing that it had carefully reviewed the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and gone further to look at each case mentioned in the PSI.
The trial court determined that Appellant had been in the juvenile system and arrested repeatedly, with all indications being that the nature and severity of the crimes he committed were escalating from crimes against property, to burglary of dwellings, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. Further, the court noted that Appellant had repeatedly violated the terms of his juvenile punishment, including five violations of probation.
The trial court heard from Appellant’s witnesses and listened as Appellant read his letter of remorse and request for mercy, which said, among other things, that his prior juvenile punishments had no real consequences and were nothing more than “slaps on the wrists,” which had not deterred his criminal activity.
Taking all of this into consideration, the trial court announced that sentencing Appellant as a youthful offender was inappropriate. Instead, Appellant was sentenced as an adult to 48.3 months in prison, with credit for 57 days’ time served, followed by one year community control, followed by two years’ probation, and payment of costs.
It is obvious from the record that the trial court understood its options under the Florida Youthful Offender Act, Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (2017).
See McKinney v. State, 27 So. 3d 160, 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“[W]e are satisfied that the court's decision not to sentence [a]ppellant as a youthful offender was properly based upon a consideration of [a]ppellant's circumstances and the serious nature of his crimes, rather than the court's opinion of the youthful offender program.”); Ellis v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“We note that application of the Youthful Offender Act to any particular defendant is discretionary with the trial judge who is in the best position to determine whether sentencing under the act is the most desirable treatment for that 2 defendant.”).
The sentence imposed was lawful, the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement, and the trial court properly and thoughtfully arrived at its decision to not impose youthful offender sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Criston Olympia McKINNEY v. State, 27 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Ellis v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)