958.14
Violation of probation or community control program.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
958.14 Violation of probation or community control program.—A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06. However, no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for a substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated, or for a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.
History.—s. 14, ch. 78-84; s. 193, ch. 83-216; s. 24, ch. 85-288; s. 19, ch. 90-208; s. 1708, ch. 97-102; s. 6, ch. 97-239; s. 38, ch. 2004-373; s. 8, ch. 2007-2; s. 138, ch. 2019-167.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Yegge v. State
Yegge v. State (2015)
“85-288, § 24, at 1821, Laws of Fla. And again in 1990, the legislature further amended the second sentence to apply the six-year cap only to technical, not substantive, violations of probation.”
State v. Meeks (2001)
“§ 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995)(emphasis supplied).”
Robin Eustache v. State of Florida (2018)
“-6- § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2005). Section 958.”
State v. Arnette (1992)
“14 to add, in pertinent part, a second sentence: However, no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department [of Corrections] for such violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he…”
Christian v. State (2012)
“for a substantive violation [of probation] for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, .”
Dixon v. State (1989)
“§ 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1987) (Italization denotes language added to the statute.”
Meeks v. State (2000)
“See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. We agree, and reverse and remand for resentencing.”
Watson v. State (1988)
“Watson contended below that the provisions of § 958.14, Fla. Stat., as amended in 1985, were applicable at the time he was resentenced after violating his community control, and that under the provisions of the amended law he could be resentenced to a maximum of six years with…”
State v. Watts (1990)
“§ 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1983). The controlling law changed effective July 1, 1985, when the legislature amended section 958.”
Eustache v. State (2016)
“” § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2005). 1 In turn, section 948.”
Danny Lee Flagg v. State of Florida (2015)
“Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2007), provides: 3 We note that the appeal only challenged the sentence imposed in case 2007-4603.”
State v. Carter (2002)
“Under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court must determine whether the offender has committed a technical or substantive violation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.