Affirmed. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing in part that "no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department [of corrections] for a substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated, or for a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less"); Flores v. State, 46 So.3d 102, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the six-year prison sentence "cap" under section 958.14 applies only to sentences resulting from a technical violation of youthful offender supervision, not to a substantive violation (i.e., the commission of a new criminal act), and that this is true even if the new criminal charge is nolle prossed) (citing State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2001) ).
Ramirez v. State, 245 So. 3d 883 (2018)
April 11, 2018
·
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
·
No. 3D18–331
245 So. 3d 883
Charles RAMIREZ, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D18-331
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed April 11, 2018
Charles Ramirez, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.