RAYMONE LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2004-10-06
No. 4D03-1873
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
884 So. 2d 460 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

Raymone Lee appealed his 36-month prison sentence imposed after he violated community control following successful completion of a county-run boot camp program. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that Florida's 364-day incarceration limit for youthful offenders applies only to those who complete Department of Corrections boot camps, not county-operated programs.


Holding

The 364-day incarceration limitation applies only to youthful offenders who complete boot camp programs operated by the Department of Corrections under section 958.045, not to those who complete county-operated boot camp programs under section 958.046. Accordingly, the trial court had full sentencing authority and was not limited to 364 days when Lee violated community control.


Headnotes

[1] A youthful offender's sentence is not limited to 364 days when the offender successfully completes a county-operated boot camp program, as opposed to a Department of Corr…

[2] Florida Statutes section 958.045(5)(c) limits incarceration to 364 days for youthful offenders who violate probation after successfully completing a Department of Correct…

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

Key Quotes

“Upon the offender's completion of the basic training program, the department shall submit a report to the court that describes the offender's performance. If the offender's performance has been satisfactory, the court shall issue an order modifying the sentence imposed and placing the offender on probation.... If the offender violates the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation and impose any sentence that it might have originally imposed as a condition of probation.”

Section 958.045(5)(c) governing Department of Corrections boot camp programs and sentencing upon violation of probation

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Lee successfully completed the Broward County Sheriff's boot camp as a youthful offender. He was subsequently found in violation of community control …

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.


Opinion of the Court
TAYLOR, J.

TAYLOR, J.

Raymone Lee successfully completed the Broward County Sheriffs boot camp as a youthful offender. After he was found in violation of community control, he was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to more than 364 days in prison because Florida’s youthful offender statute limits incarceration for youthful offenders to 364 days upon successful completion of boot camp. For support, he cites to sections 958.04 and 958.045, Florida Statutes (2002), and cases construing those statutory provisions. The state responds that these provisions do not apply to the defendant because he was not committed to the boot camp program operated by the Department of Corrections pursuant to section 958.045.

Section 958.045 governs the department’s youthful offender basic training program, commonly referred to as “boot camp.” Subsection (5)(c) provides in part:

Upon the offender’s completion of the basic training program, the department shall submit a report to the court that describes the offender’s performance. If the offender’s performance has been satisfactory, the court shall issue an order modifying the sentence imposed and placing the offender on probation.... If the offender violates the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation and impose any sentence that it might have originally imposed as a condition of probation.

(Emphasis added).

Section 958.04(2)(b), which governs the disposition of youthful offenders generally, states:

The court may impose a period of incarceration as a condition of probation or community control, which period of incarceration shall be served in either a county facility, a department probation and restitution center, or a community residential facility which is owned and operated by any public or private entity providing such services.... Placement in such a facility or center shall not exceed 364 days.

Read together, these two statutes have been consistently construed as limiting to 364 days the period of incarceration which may be imposed for violation of probation following successful completion of boot camp. See Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 841 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

However, as the state points out, the defendants in those cases were placed in boot camp programs operated by the Department of Corrections. Here, the defendant was not placed in the department’s boot camp program, but was committed to the county’s boot camp facility. Consequently, the trial court’s sentencing authority is not limited by section gSS.OJSfóXc).1

Unlike the detailed provisions of the statute pertaining to the department’s boot camp programs, the statute concerning county-run programs merely states:

In counties where there are county-operated youthful offender boot camp programs, other than boot camps described in s. 958.04 or s. 985.309, the court may sentence a youthful offender to such a boot camp. In county-operated youthful offender boot camp programs, juvenile offenders shall not be commingled with youthful offenders.

§ 958.046, Fla. Stat. (2003).

There are no provisions in the Youthful Offender Act requiring application of rules governing department boot camp facilities to the county-run programs. Moreover, the statute contains no specific provision comparable to section 958.045(5)(c) limiting sentences for youthful offenders who complete a county boot camp.

We therefore affirm the defendant’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . We note Chief Judge Altenbernd’s observations that it is doubtful that the legislature intended the result urged by the defendant even in cases where the defendant completed the department's program. See Blaxton, 868 So. 2d at 621 ("We are inclined to believe that the legislature intended to permit the court to impose any sentence ‘that it might have originally imposed.’ Indeed, a judge may be hesitant to recommend boot camp in an effort to rehabilitate a youth if the-judge realizes that the youth’s sentence upon a future violation of probation will be limited to such a short term .of incarceration.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
    …holds that, upon violating probation imposed after successful completion of boot camp, a defendant may only receive a penalty of up to 364 days in a specified facility. Bloodworth v. State, 769 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also, Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Burkett v. State, 816 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Section 958.04, Florida Statutes (2002), governs the judicial disp…
    1 / 2
  • Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
    …69 So. 2d at 1118. But see Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c) do not apply to a defendant who was committed to a boot camp not operated by the Department of Corrections); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (same). The postconviction court did not agree. Citing section 958.14, it determined that because Cutler’s probation was revoked based on a substantive violation, it could sentence Cutler to the maximum sentence authorized for th…
  • Adderly v. State, 958 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
    …668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Claridy v. State, 911 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Green v. State, 902 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Mims v. State, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mason v. State, 864 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Lawson v. State, 845 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Williams v.…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw