DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADDARRYLL DORSEY JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3617

[February 20, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

12CF013654AMB, 13CF000050AMB, 13CF005437AMB and 

13CF005879AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

The defendant challenges his forty-year sentence for robbery with a 

firearm after revocation of his community control in case number 

13CF5879. At the time he violated his community control, the defendant 

was twenty years old. He now argues that his sentence is invalid because 

it fails to provide for judicial review under chapter 2014-220, Laws of 

Florida, as codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida 

Statutes. We disagree and affirm. We remand, however, for the trial court 

to correct scrivener’s errors in the written revocation orders in case 

numbers 12CF13654, 13CF0050, 13CF5437, and 13CF5879.

There are three reasons why the defendant is not entitled to 

resentencing. First, because the defendant was no longer a minor at the 

time he violated community control, he was not entitled to sentencing 

under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. See Davis v. State, 223 So. 3d

1106, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
2

Second, the defendant’s forty-year sentence comports with Graham v. 

Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). 

Recently, our supreme court held that a sentence with the possibility of 

parole is sufficient to provide juvenile offenders a meaningful opportunity 

for release, and the sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment 

under Graham and Miller. State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018). Here, 

the defendant has been given a meaningful opportunity for release. 

Third, the defendant’s forty-year sentence was imposed after he had 

been released from prison on community control. Thus, he had already 

been given more than an opportunity for release and cannot subsequently

show a violation of the Eighth Amendment under Graham. See Rogers v. 

State, 223 So. 3d 281, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“A juvenile offender who 

has actually been released from a prison sentence has received more than 

what Graham requires.”).

There are, however, scrivener’s errors in the written revocation orders 

that the State agrees should be corrected. The trial court found the 

defendant violated community control by committing attempted armed 

robbery rather than armed robbery as was charged in the affidavits of 

violation. Nonetheless, the court’s revocation orders reflect the defendant

violated community control by committing armed robbery. Thus, the 

written order is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

The trial court also found the defendant did not violate community 

control by being in a place where he was not supposed to be. Yet the 

revocation orders include that allegation as a violation.

We therefore remand the case for the correction of these scrivener’s 

errors where the written revocation orders list incorrect information about 

the violations in case numbers 12CF13654, 13CF0050, 13CF5437, and 

13CF5879. See Ali v. State, 215 So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Affirmed and Remanded to correct scrivener’s errors in revocation orders.

CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.