Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Randy ARNETTE, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-08-27
Citations: 604 So. 2d 482
Docket Number: No. 76689
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Randy ARNETTE, Respondent.
Judges: BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 604
Pages: 482–485

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Randy ARNETTE, Respondent.
No. 76689.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 27, 1992.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for petitioner.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
McDonald, justice.
We review Arnette v. State, 566 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the district court certified a question as being of great public importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. The issue is what sentence can be imposed on a youthful offender who, in 1979, received the maximum authorized sentence of four years' imprisonment followed by two years to be served in a community control program when he violated the conditions of community control in 1984. We approve, with one exception, the decision of the district court, as explained below.
In 1979 Arnette, then fifteen years old, pled guilty to armed burglary and false imprisonment. He originally received a sentence of fifteen years for the burglary and five years for the false imprisonment. Because he met the requirements of subsection 958.04(2), Florida Statutes (1979), for sentencing as a youthful offender, the court changed his sentence to four years' imprisonment to be followed by two years' community control, the maximum allowed under subsection 958.05(3). After release from prison and while on community control in 1984, Arnette violated the conditions thereof by committing a sexual battery. After sentencing him for this new crime, the court resentenced Arnette to life imprisonment for the 1979 armed burglary. We agree that this new sentence was not legal.
In 1984, section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1983), read: "A violation or alleged violation of the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06(1)." Subsection 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provided that, if community control is revoked because of a violation, the court may "impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation or into community control." Thus, we must determine what sentence the trial judge could have imposed on Arnette originally.
As previously stated, Arnette was originally classified as a youthful offender. The district court recognized some ambiguities in the Youthful Offender Act in reference to the issue presented.
Thus the Youthful Offender Act incorporated several patent ambiguities when a youthful offender who was placed on probation or community control under the Youthful Offender Act violated community control and the statutory maximum punishment for the original offense was in excess of the limitation contained in the Youthful Offender Act. The first ambiguity is whether the youthful offender's confinement was subject to an outside limitation of four years or six years. The second ambiguity is whether the incarceration limitation (be it four years or six years) applied when the youthful offender was being resentenced after a violation of straight probation or community control or whether the reference in section 958.14 to section 948.06(1) served to permit the imposition of the maximum statutory punishment for the particular underlying offense without the Youthful Offender Act's four or six year limitation. A third ambiguity is whether the answer to the preceding question is different when the original Youthful Offender sentence is a split sentence rather than straight probation imposed in lieu of sentence. Another ambiguity is whether the answers to the preceding questions differ when the original Youthful Offender sentence is a true split sentence rather than a probationary split sentence.
566 So.2d at 1371 (footnote omitted).
In 1985 the legislature amended section 958.14to limit total prison sentences of a youthful offender to six years. Ch. 85-288, § 24, Laws of Fla. We construe this amendment to be a legislative response to correct some of the ambiguities expressed above and a declaration of its prior intent. Although the issues addressed in Brooks v. State, 478 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1985), and State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla.1990), are somewhat different from the issue in the instant case and language in Brooks and Watts could be construed contrary to this conclusion, both Brooks and Watts held that youthful offenders could be sentenced to a total of only six years' imprisonment.
It has always been clear that the legislature intended to treat youthful offenders differently than adults. Unless the legislature clearly states otherwise, youthful offenders maintain youthful offender status even when they violate a condition of community control. Section 958.14did not specifically authorize applying adult sanctions to a youthful offender, and we now perceive the legislature's intent to have been to limit penalties against youthful offenders to six years. Clearly, however, some sanctions should exist for a violation of community control. Thus, we conclude that, even though a youthful offender had been imprisoned originally for four years, the legislature always intended to authorize reimprisonment up to a total imprisonment of six years when community control is violated.
We accordingly approve the decision under review with the exception that we authorize a total of six years' imprisonment instead of four. We direct that Arnette's life sentence for armed burglary be reduced to a total of six years' imprisonment.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
HARDING, J., dissents with an opinion, in which GRIMES, J., concurs.
. We have rephrased the issue raised in the certified question, which reads as follows:
In answering the second certified question in Brooks v. State, 478 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1985), did the Supreme Court hold that prior to the 1985 amendment to the Youthful Offender Act (chapter 958) even though a youthful offender had previously been adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced as such to a probationary split sentence and thereafter violated probation he may be "resentenced" to confinement for the maximum statutory period for the offense involved without limitation to the four year provision of the Youthful Offender Act (section 958.04(2)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes), contrary to the holdings in Brown v. State, 492 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Timothy Crosby v. State, 475 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lane v. State, 470 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hart v. State, 463 So.2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Clem v. State, 462 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); James Crosby (II) v. State, 462 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ellis v. State, 436 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 443 So.2d 980 (Fla.1984); Brandle v. State, 406 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Greene v. State, 398 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), appeal dis'm., 406 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1981).
Arnette v. State, 566 So.2d 1369, 1373-74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
. This opinion does not affect the sentence rendered as a penalty for this new crime.
. Provided the crime is of the second degree or higher.