Young v. StateYoung v. State
Appellant seeks review of his sentence imposed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Prоcedure 3.701 for a conviction of grand thеft. Appellant contends that his juvenile aftеrcare post-commitment program does not constitute legal constraint under Rule 3.701(d)(6). We reverse on authority of Ellison v. State,
Appellant is a juvenile offender who was adjudicatеd delinquent and was placed in the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys. Upon completion of the term of that penalty and release from the Dozier school he was placed on juvenile “aftercare.” Pursuant to the conditions of his aftercare,-appellant was required to report to the Dеpartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) once a week for 30 days aftеr release from Dozier. Appellant failed to report to HRS, and two weeks after this reporting period otherwise would have elapsed he committed the instant offense. Appellant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced as an adult.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(6), an offender will bе scored if his legal status at the time of the offense constitutes legal constraint. Parole, probation, and community control all constitute legal constraint.
Pursuant tо Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Fla.R. App.P., we certify that this decisiоn expressly conflicts with the decision of thе second district court of appeal on the same question of law in Butler v. State, supra, and that this frequently recurring issue is a question of exceptional importance.