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
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 503 Maintaining youthful offender status upon probation violation5 citing casesaffirming that “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 revoked3 citing courts put it this way
  • Mistretta v. State, 99 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).published
    ([W]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.)
  • Robin Eustache v. State of Florida, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018).published
    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-…
  • Goff v. State, 197 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).published
    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.…
  • Yegge v. State, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).published
    (affirming that “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)
  • Gadson v. State, 160 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).published
    (holding youthful offender status cannot be revoked even for committing substantive probation violation)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steven TIDWELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
2D10-3191.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 21, 2011.
Published opinion
74 So. 3d 503
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14848
2011 WL 4375010
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).