State v. Meeks

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that, under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1995), a substantive violation of youthful-offender probation or community control requires the commission of a separate criminal offense. A failure to remain confined to an approved residence, although potentially willful and substantial for purposes of revocation, was classified as a technical or nonsubstantive violation. The court approved the First District Court of Appeal's decision remanding Timothy Meeks for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A substantive violation under section 958.14 refers exclusively to a violation premised on the commission of a separate criminal act. A mere breach of a condition of probation or community control is technical or nonsubstantive unless it involves a separate criminal offense.
2. Meeks's failures to remain confined to his approved residence were technical or nonsubstantive violations, not substantive violations, because the record did not establish that they involved separate criminal offenses.

Questions Presented

1. What constitutes a substantive violation of probation or community control under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1995), for purposes of determining the maximum sentence that may be imposed on a youthful offender?
2. Whether failure to remain confined to an approved residence, without commission of a separate criminal offense, is a substantive violation or a technical/nonsubstantive violation under section 958.14.

Disposition

approved