Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“hen a youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14, his status as a youthful offender cannot be revoked.”
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mistretta v. State (fladistctapp, 2012-08-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mistretta v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
hen a youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14, his status as a youthful offender cannot be revoked.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robin Eustache v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2018 · confidence medium
Cyr v. State, 106 So. 3d 487, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Josey v. State, 128 So. 3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same); Lachenauer v. State, 117 So. 3d 880, 880-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561, 561-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same); Christian, 84 So. 3d at 442 (same); Tidwell v. State, 74 So. 3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same); Blacker, 49 So. 3d at 788 (same); Johnson v. State, 41 So. 3d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (same); Hudson, 989 So. 2d at 726 (same); Rogers v. State, 972 So. 2d 1017, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same); see also Lewis v. State, 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goff v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Mosley v. State, 77 So.3d 877, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yegge v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Lee, 67 So.3d at 1202 (holding that “[w]hile a defendant is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender on any new offense he or she may have committed, the trial court cannot revoke a defendant’s youthful offender status on offenses for which that defendant has already been sentenced” (citation omitted)); Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (explaining that the defendant’s youthful offender status could not be revoked upon violation of probation for a substantive violation involving a new law offense); Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 201…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harden v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Nicholson, 10 So.3d at 145-16 (holding that, in the defendant’s trial for the murder of his ex-wife, evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts committed against victim were admissible to show the defendant’s motive and intent even though they were not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to warrant introduction for purposes of identity); State v. Wright, 74 So.3d 503, 505-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that, in the prosecution of the defendant for armed kidnapping of the victim, evidence of the defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence against the victim was relevant to t…
discussed Cited "see" Velasco v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that one’s status as a youthful offender cannot be revoked based on a violation of probation); Lee v. State, 67 So.3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“ ‘Once a circuit court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resen-tencing after a violation of probation or community control.’ ” (quoting Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gadson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The written judgment and sentence did not include a youthful offender designation. “[The] sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Tidwell v. State, 74 So.3d 503, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding youthful offender status cannot be revoked even for committing substantive probation violation); Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding youthful offender status could not be revoked upo…
Steven TIDWELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
2D10-3191.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 21, 2011.
74 So. 3d 503
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.
Northcutt, Davis, Crenshaw.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)
NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The circuit court found that Steven Tid-well violated the terms of the probation to which he had been sentenced for the crime of lewd battery, and it sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders [1] brief, stating that she could find no meritorious argument to support reversal. We agree, but when reviewing the record we discovered an error in the sentencing documents.

Tidwell was designated a youthful offender when he was originally sentenced for the lewd battery crime. His sentence on the violation of probation is permissible under the youthful offender act because he committed a new law offense and his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crime. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2009). But when a youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14, his status as a youthful offender cannot be revoked. Vantine v. State, 66 So.3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The written sentence entered after Tidwell’s probation violation does not designate him as a youthful offender. Accordingly, we remand with directions to correct the sentencing documents to reflect that the designation continues. Tid-well does not need to be present for the correction.

Affirmed; remanded for correction of sentencing documents.

DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).