Christian v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5291

Christian appeals the denial of his 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
He was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act to concurrent split sentences on aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
After serving the prison portion and while on youthful offender probation, he admitted to marijuana use, violating probation.
The trial court revoked probation and imposed concurrent ten-year state prison terms on the underlying offenses.
Christian argues the six-year cap for youthful offender sentences applies because the violation is technical/nonsubstantive since no new crime was charged or proven.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a drug-use violation is a substantive violation for purposes of the six-year cap.	Christian argues the violation is not substantive since no new crime was charged.	State maintains illicit drug use is a substantive violation under Robinson.	Substantive violation established; Robinson followed.
Whether the six-year cap applies to sentences following a substantive violation of probation.	Christian seeks application of the six-year limit only.	State argues cap does not apply after substantive violation.	Cap not applicable to the substantive-violation sentence; longer term permitted.
Whether youthful offender classification remains after substantive violation affecting future sentencing.	Christian asserts loss of youthful offender status for subsequent proceedings.	State contends continued youthful offender framework applies, with limitations.	Youthful offender status applies; sentencing features continue to govern; six-year cap not controlling for the substantive-violation sentence.
Whether Rogers v. State conflicts with Robinson and prior Florida districts on proof of substantive probation violation.	Christian suggests Rogers imposes additional requirements to prove substantive violation.	State argues Rogers may conflict but Robinson controls; no need for new charges to prove substantive violation.	No conflict; Rogers does not require separate charging/prosecution; Robinson remains valid; conflict certified.

Robinson v. State, 702 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (illicit drug use is a substantive probation violation under Youthful Offender Act)
Drost v. State, 995 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (follows Robinson on substantive violations)
Schneider v. State, 929 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (prolongs application of youthful offender concepts)
Stevenson v. State, 869 So.2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (youthful offender framework discussed)
Washington v. State, 840 So.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (provisions of probation and violations considered)
Hardy v. State, 706 So.2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (early precedent on probation violations)
State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2001) (supreme court on substantive violation framework)
Flores v. State, 46 So.3d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (discusses Rogers interpretation of substantive violation)
Morency v. State, 955 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explains Flores/Rogers interplay)
Boynton v. State, 896 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (on new offenses and youthful offender status after probation violations)
Rogers v. State, 972 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (language about being charged/convicted for substantive offenses; interpretation debated)
Arnette v. State, 604 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1992) (principle that youthful offender sentencing features apply to future proceedings on same offense)