Cases from cite.case.law:

COOPER, v. STATE, 267 So. 3d 558 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . SUPERVISION FOR A SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION AND IMPOSES A SENTENCE ABOVE THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAP UNDER SECTIONS 958.14 . . . ORFINGER, COHEN, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. § 958.14, Fla. Stat. . . .

PARKS, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 969 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . SUPERVISION FOR A SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION AND IMPOSES A SENTENCE ABOVE THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAP UNDER SECTIONS 958.14 . . .

EUSTACHE, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Rule of Lenity First, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that sections 958.14 and 948.06, Florida . . . Although the majority's interpretation of sections 958.14 and 948.06, Florida Statutes (2017), is not . . . Davis's specially concurring opinion in Yegge that "the maximum sentence for the offense" under section 958.14 . . . Thus, the meaning of "maximum sentence" in the context of sections 958.14 and 948.06 appears to be ambiguous . . . In Arnette , this Court properly interpreted section 958.14 as requiring the court to sentence the probation . . . SUPERVISION FOR A SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION AND IMPOSES A SENTENCE ABOVE THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAP UNDER SECTIONS 958.14 . . . In section 958.14, part of the Act, the Legislature provides that a youthful offender who violates probation . . . Section 958.14 of the Act reads in full: A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of . . . Section 958.14 clearly and unambiguously requires sentencing within the six-year cap for youthful offenders . . . Section 958.14 also clearly and unambiguously directs that a violation of probation or community control . . .

RAMIREZ, v. STATE, 245 So. 3d 883 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . . 46 So.3d 102, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the six-year prison sentence "cap" under section 958.14 . . .

COOPER, v. STATE, 235 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes, addresses a youthful offender’s violation of probation or community . . . Section 958.14 dictates that violations are subject to the provisions of section 948.06, which provides . . . SUPERVISION FOR A SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION AND IMPOSES A SENTENCE ABOVE THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAP UNDER SECTIONS 958.14 . . . When read together, sections 958.04, 948.06, and 958.14 permit the trial court to sentence a youthful . . .

M. DAVIS, v. STATE, 210 So. 3d 101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

EUSTACHE, v. STATE, 199 So. 3d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Davis’s specially concurring opinion in Yegge that “the maximum sentence for the offense” under section 958.14 . . . Thus, the meaning of “maximum sentence” in the context of sections 958.14 and 948.06 appears to be ambiguous . . . Legislature had intended the outcome espoused by the majority, it could have easily added language to section 958.14 . . . Thus, I construe sections 948.06 and 958.14 to grant the trial court the discretion to impose a sentence . . . offender upon revocation of probation or community control supervision is governed by sections 948.06 and 958.14 . . . Section 958.14 provides that “[a] violation ... of probation or the terms of a community control program . . . shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06.” § 958.14, Fla. . . . The second sentence of section 958.14 continues to limit the period of incarceration for a youthful offender . . . maximum sentence for the offense, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated. § 958.14 . . .

RANDALL, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

CRUZ, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2013); State v. Milbry, 476 So.2d 1281, 1281-82 (Fla.1985). . . .

FLAGG, v. STATE, 179 So. 3d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Irrespective of this view, a plain reading of Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2007), compels this court . . . Section .958.14, Florida Statutes (2007), provides: A violation or alleged violation of probation or . . . We agree that we must adhere to the plain language of section 958.14, which clearly provides, “[N]o youthful . . . appellant should be resentenced as a youthful offender within the six-year sentencing cap in section 958.14 . . .

PASSINO, v. STATE, 174 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. .Stat. (2000) (limiting commitment of youthful offender to lesser of six years or . . .

YEGGE, v. STATE, 186 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Id. at 1059 (emphasis omitted) (citing § 958.14, Fla. . . . On review, the Florida Supreme Court noted that at the .time of Arnette’s resentencing, section 958.14 . . . Therefore, both the pre-1990 version of section 958.14 — which was at issue in. . . . In Arnette, the supreme court concluded that this language in section 958.14 should not be considered . . . The first sentence of section 958.14 serves to sever the restraints of the original youthful offender . . . Yegge violated probation or community control, he was resentenced in accordance with section 958.14, . . . When section 958.14 was enacted in 1978, it provided simply that “[a] violation or alleged violation . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. . . . A plain reading of section 958.14 leads to the conclusion that the sentencing limitations contained in . . . Section 958.14 states that a violation of probation shall subject the youthful offender to sentencing . . .

GUZMAN, v. STATE, 155 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . sentence exceeds the six-year cap for a “technical or nonsubstantive violation” as stated in section 958.14 . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 147 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. . . . State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (applying section 958.14 and holding a defendant placed on probation . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also § 958.14 Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

VIERA, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. . . . State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (applying section 958.14 and holding a defendant placed on probation . . .

A. SHULTZ, v. STATE, 136 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1990), amended by ch. 90-208, § 19, at 1161, Laws of Fla. . . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . .

J. ODEGAARD, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

WEST, v. STATE, 129 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Because the trial court erred in its application of section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2013), we reverse . . . which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated. § 958.14 . . . “[A] ‘substantive violation,’ as the phrase is used in section 958.14, refers exclusively to a violation . . . Under section 958.14, West could not be sentenced for a period of longer than six years for a technical . . . no substantive violation, then the trial court shall correct West’s sentence to comply with section 958.14 . . .

SANDERS- BASHUI, v. STATE, 124 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . 982, 989 (Fla.2001) (“[W]e conclude that a ‘substantive violation,’ as the phrase is used in section 958.14 . . .

LACHENAUER, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 880 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . State, 972 So.2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 109 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . (citing § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010)). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 110 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . violation of probation, a trial court may impose the maximum sentence allowable for the crime, see § 958.14 . . .

ST. CYR, v. STATE, 106 So. 3d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

MISTRETTA, v. STATE, 99 So. 3d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14 . . . We also note that under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2005), a youthful offender who commits a substantive . . .

JACQUES, v. STATE, 95 So. 3d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2012). The lower court denied the motion on both points. . . . We find no error in the imposition of a sentence exceeding six years as section 958.14 provides that, . . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . .

A. YEGGE, v. STATE, 88 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2007); State v. . . . youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14 . . . originally been imposed had he not been sentenced under the youthful offender act pursuant to section 958.14 . . .

CHRISTIAN, Jr. v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . More importantly, no such holding could be squared with the plain language of section 958.14, Florida . . . Seeing no reason to revisit our longstanding precedent, which in our view accurately interprets section 958.14 . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . See, e.g., § 958.14, Fla. . . .

EUSTACHE, v. STATE, 83 So. 3d 784 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Pursuant to section 958.14, Florida Statutes, following appellant’s substantive violation of youthful . . .

GOLDWIRE, v. STATE, 73 So. 3d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Specifically, section 958.14 discusses a youthful offender’s violation of probation. . . . which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated. § 958.14 . . .

TIDWELL, v. STATE, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . youthful offender commits a violation of probation, even a substantive one as described in section 958.14 . . .

LEE, v. STATE, 67 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .” § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

VANTINE, v. STATE, 66 So. 3d 350 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 958.14, provides as follows: [N]o youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the . . .

PLAMONDON, v. STATE, 58 So. 3d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . State, 528 So.2d 101, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)); see also § 958.14, Fla. . . . Because he was sentenced as a youthful offender, under section 958.14, his maximum sentence was limited . . . [A] ‘substantive violation,' as the phrase is used in [the violation of probation statute,] section 958.14 . . .

C. SNYDER, v. STATE, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

BLACKER, v. STATE, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . Nothing in section 948.06 or 958.14 indicates that youthful offender status is revoked upon revocation . . . imposing a sentence for the third degree felonies in excess of the statutory maximum, which, under section 958.14 . . .

FLORES, v. STATE, 46 So. 3d 102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 958.14. . . . “[A] ‘substantive violation,’ as the phrase is used in section 958.14, refers exclusively to a violation . . .

COLBERT, v. STATE, 15 So. 3d 898 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . .

DROST, v. STATE, 995 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . .

HUDSON, v. STATE, 989 So. 2d 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . He contends that his seven-year sentence exceeds the six-year cap of section 958.14, Florida Statutes . . . community control followed by five years of probation, concluding that the second sentence of section 958.14 . . . Section 958.14 provides: A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control . . .

YOUNG, a k a v. STATE, 988 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . .” § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2002). At the time Mr. . . .

MARTINEZ, v. STATE, 980 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . imposition of an additional sixty months of probation violated the six-year cap established by section 958.14 . . .

ROGERS, v. STATE, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Pursuant to section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2000), a violator of youthful offender probation whose . . . Section 958.14 states: A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control . . . which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated. § 958.14 . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 945 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . sentence beyond the six-year limit for violations of youthful offender probation, as described in section 958.14 . . . Thompson’s argument that his sentence is illegal misconstrues both section 958.14 and Apprendi. . . . Section 958.14 restricts a court to a sentence of six years in prison “for a technical or nonsubstantive . . . the offense for which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated.” § 958.14 . . . lower court found a substantive violation, the court was not bound by the six-year cap found in section 958.14 . . .

EASON, v. STATE, 932 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . previous order, the trial court had ruled that the five-year sentence was not illegal under section 958.14 . . . provisions of sections 958.045(5)(c) and 958.04(2)(b) su-perceded the general provisions of section 958.14 . . .

A. SCHNEIDER, Jr. v. STATE, 929 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat.; Robinson v. State, 702 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). . . .

CUTLER, v. STATE, 927 So. 2d 249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Citing section 958.14, it determined that because Cutler’s probation was revoked based on a substantive . . . 871 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), which held that section 958.045(5)(c) rather than section 958.14 . . .

BRYANT, v. STATE, 876 So. 2d 623 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . violation was substantive, the court could impose a sentence up to the maximum for the offenses. § 958.14 . . . sentences in these cases exceed the maximum provided by law, violating the express provision of section 958.14 . . .

MIMS, v. STATE, 871 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Upon violation of probation, Meeks was subject to resen-tencing pursuant to section 958.14, Florida Statutes . . . Therefore, the supreme court’s interpretation of section 958.14 in Meeks is inapplicable to the appellant . . .

MASON, v. STATE, 864 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . probation by committing a new law offense also fails because the general statements reflected in sections 958.14 . . .

BRYANT, v. STATE, 859 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1998); Swilley, 781 So.2d at 459. . . .

PAPINCHAK, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

WALLACE, v. STATE, 851 So. 2d 232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995); Young v. State, 697 So.2d 75 (Fla.1997); Johnson v. . . .

WINDOM, v. STATE, 835 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The resolution of this controversy depends on which version of section 958.14 should apply — the version . . . of the amended statute would constitute an ex post facto violation: The amended version of section 958.14 . . . There is also no dispute that section 958.14 as amended was in effect at the time defendant committed . . . We remand the matter for re-sentencing consistent with section 958.14, as it was in effect at the time . . .

STATE v. H. CARTER,, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court must determine whether the offender has . . .

WHITE, v. STATE, 828 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat.; State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994, 998 (Fla. 1990) (citing Watson v. . . .

J. SHAW, v. STATE, 826 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1999), addresses the sanctions which may be imposed upon a youthful . . .

HENDERSON, v. STATE, 823 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes, provides that a youthful offender who has violated probation may not . . .

SANCHEZ, v. STATE, 821 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed on authority of section 958.14, . . .

A. ROSS, v. STATE, 819 So. 2d 924 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. . . .

STATE v. MEEKS,, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)

. . . importance: CAN A CIRCUIT COURT RE-SENTENCE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR A SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 958.14 . . . it exceeded the six-year maximum which could be imposed for technical violations pursuant to section 958.14 . . . ANALYSIS Section 958.14, Florida Statutes, addresses the sanctions which may be imposed upon a youthful . . . See § 958.14, Fla. . . . Section 958.14 has not undergone serious, substantive amendments since 1990. . . . criminal offense qualifies as a substantive violation of probation or community control under section 958.14 . . . cannot be characterized as a “technical” violation even if sentencing were to proceed under chapter 958.14 . . .

SCHNEIDER, v. STATE, 788 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . should have been sentenced to no more than six years in prison as a youthful offender under section 958.14 . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1983 & 1991); Willis v. State, 744 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). . . . However, the version of section 958.14 in effect at the time Schneider violated his community control . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1989); Buckle v. . . .

M. SWILLEY, v. STATE, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . control, to be followed by one year of probation, as a youthful offender in accordance with section 958.14 . . . his sentences exceeded the six-year sentence maximum allowed under the Youthful Offender Act, section 958.14 . . . The trial court then proceeded to hold that Swilley’s sentences were not illegal because section 958.14 . . . The Youthful Offender Act, section 958.14, provides: A violation or alleged violation of probation or . . .

QUILES, v. STATE, 777 So. 2d 992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “no youthful offender shall be [incarcerated]. . . .

MEEKS, v. STATE, 754 So. 2d 101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Meeks contends, as a youthful offender, that his sentence is illegal because under section 958.14, Florida . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. We agree, and reverse and remand for re-sentencing. . . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes, provides: Violation of probation or community control program. — A . . . Therefore, because the language of section 958.14, Florida Statutes, is clear, we examine the ordinary . . . A “willful and substantial violation” of probation and community control under section 958.14, Florida . . . My colleagues assume, wrongly, I suggest, that Meeks was sentenced under the provisions of section 958.14 . . . trial court was limited on resentence to a term of no more than six years as provided for in section 958.14 . . . Section 958.14 provides in pertinent part as follows: A violation or alleged violation of probation or . . . Section 948.06(1) (emphasis added), to which section 958.14 refers, provides in pertinent part: Whenever . . . In my view, the reference in section 958.14 back to section 948.06(1) was intended to and does authorize . . .

ESCUTARY, v. STATE, 753 So. 2d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . State, 678 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), this Court recognized that “under amended section 958.14 . . .

WILLIS, v. STATE, 744 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Under section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1997), a trial court may impose a non-youthful offender sentence . . .

GRANT, v. STATE, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . in addition to adding section 775.082(8), also amended sections 944.705, 947.141, 948.06, 948.01 and 958.14 . . .

C. JOHNSON, v. STATE, 736 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

YOUNG, v. STATE, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . in addition to adding section 775.082(8), also amended sections 944.705, 947.141, 948.06, 948.01 and 958.14 . . .

WILKEY, v. STATE, 712 So. 2d 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .

SCHEBEL, v. STATE, 721 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . substantive offenses committed in 1991, it again exceeded the six-year statutory maximum set forth in section 958.14 . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1989); Gardner v. State, 656 So.2d 933, 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990); Reeves v. State, 605 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1989); Cole v. . . .

ROBINSON, v. STATE, 702 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1993) provides: [N]o youthful offender shall be committed to the custody . . .

HILL, v. STATE, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . appellant’s sentence did not exceed the maximum permitted by the Youthful Offender Act, sections 958.011 — 958.14 . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 693 So. 2d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . reject the state’s argument that this sentence was permissible under section 958.04(2)(d) or section 958.14 . . .

HILL, v. STATE, 692 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . However, section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1991), permits sentences in excess of the six-year cap for . . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1991), provides, in pertinent part: A violation or alleged violation . . .

ANDERSON, v. STATE, 679 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See §§ 958.04(2)(c), 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1991); Jones v. State, 633 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 678 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . ordered that the matter be returned to the trial court for appropriate resentencing pursuant to section 958.14 . . . It had failed to realize that the holding of Amette was based upon the pre-1990 version of section 958.14 . . . .- Under amended section 958.14, a youthful offender can be sentenced in excess of six years after revocation . . . See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1995); Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Darden v. . . . The defendant was originally sentenced in 1993, when the amended version of section 958.14 was in effect . . .

M. HERNANDEZ, Jr. v. STATE, 672 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . We conclude that section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1991), which explains the sentencing options available . . .

DUNBAR, v. STATE, 664 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . See § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1993); Reeves v. State, 605 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 661 So. 2d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . aside, and the matter is returned to the trial court for appropriate resentencing as provided in § 958.14 . . .

GARDNER, v. STATE, 656 So. 2d 933 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . In regard to a revocation of community control or probation, section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1987), . . . The supreme court held that the trial court was limited by section 958.14 to imposing incarceratory sentences . . . Section 958.14 merely provides that, upon revocation of probation or community control, credit need be . . . any part of the time that he shall be sentenced to serve," is not specifically referenced in section 958.14 . . .

DARDEN, v. STATE, 641 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . sentences because they exceeded the six-year limitation placed on youthful offender sentences by section 958.14 . . . Section 958.14 of the Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), as amended, effective October 1, 1990, operates to . . .

E. PHILLIPS, v. STATE, 630 So. 2d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . If probation is revoked, section 958.14, Florida Statutes, provides that a youthful offender cannot be . . .

REEVES, v. STATE, 605 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . that resolution of this dispute boils down to the question of whether the amended version of section 958.14 . . . The amended version of section 958.14 operates to subject a youthful offender to the general provisions . . . There is also no dispute that section 958.14 as amended was in effect at the time defendant committed . . . However, as defendant points out, section 958.14 was amended well after defendant had committed the offense . . .

STATE v. ARNETTE,, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1992)

. . . Prior to the 1985 amendment, section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1983), provided that “[a] violation or . . . In 1985, the legislature amended section 958.14 to add, in pertinent part, a second sentence: However . . . We also noted that “the legislature amended section 958.14 after two district court decisions questioned . . . Prior to the 1985 amendment, section 958.14 was silent as to any time limitation upon resentencing a . . . See § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . In 1984, section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1983), read: “A violation or alleged violation of the terms . . . resentenced after a violation of straight probation or community control or whether the reference in section 958.14 . . .

DIMILTA, v. STATE, 590 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1989), provides as follows: ... . . . Watts, 558 So.2d 994, 997 (Fla.1990): The plain and ordinary meaning of section 958.14 is clear. . . .

M. GLASCO, v. STATE, 567 So. 2d 565 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . We also call the trial court’s attention to section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1989) which limits the . . .

ARNETTE, v. STATE, 566 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 958.14 of the Youthful Offender Act provided that upon a violation of community control the youthful . . . On the other hand, if pre-amendment, the reference in section 958.14 to section 948.06(1) authorized . . . The second question concerning whether the 1985 amendment of section 958.14 applies has recently been . . . Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla.1990) addressed the issue and held that section 958.14, Florida Statutes, as . . . can impose after revocation of a youthful offender’s probation is the six year limitation of section 958.14 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 559 So. 2d 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1985). . . .

STATE v. WATTS,, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)

. . . The defense argued that section 958.14 of the Florida Statutes (1987), part of the Youthful Offender . . . The state argued that section 958.14 was not intended to limit the circuit court’s discretion, and that . . . The controlling law changed effective July 1, 1985, when the legislature amended section 958.14 to add . . . The question is whether the legislature intended this second provision in section 958.14 to limit the . . . The plain and ordinary meaning of section 958.14 is clear. . . .

L. HAMILTON, v. STATE, 553 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . a violation of community control, despite the 1985 amendment to the youthful offender act, section 958.14 . . . redefined, perhaps in response to Brooks, as of July 1, 1985, the effective date of an amendment to section 958.14 . . . , Florida Statutes, as follows: 958.14. . . . .2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), was the first of many cases to hold that the amended language of section 958.14 . . . only logical conclusion is that the legislature intended to change the case law interpretation of § 958.14 . . .

HUNNICUTT, v. STATE, 549 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . We have also held that the alternative provisions of section 958.14 (as amended in 1985) apply to sentences . . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes was amended in 1985 to add the underlined language: A violation or alleged . . .

W. DIXON, v. STATE, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . was error to resentence him outside the confines of the Youthful Offender Act because under section 958.14 . . . Prior to its 1985 amendment, section 958.14 provided that, upon a revocation of probation or community . . . Nevertheless, the courts are not unanimous in their reading of the amended section 958.14. . . . Section 958.14 is not even discussed in Poore. . . . All of these cases were either decided before the 1985 amendment to section 958.14 or else relied on . . .

KERKLIN, v. STATE, 548 So. 2d 689 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Since this sentence exceeds the six-year maximum provided by section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1985), . . .

STATE v. HICKS,, 545 So. 2d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . . § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1987). Dixon v. State, 546 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Watson v. . . .

HAYNES, v. STATE, 545 So. 2d 949 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . community control and in imposing consecutive sentences in excess of the six year maximum prescribed in § 958.14 . . . Under the provisions of § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1985), a youthful offender who is resentenced after a violation . . .

BOFFO, v. STATE, 543 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . . §§ 958.04(2)(c); 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . . Section 958.14, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that upon violation of probation or community control . . .

WARREN, v. STATE, 542 So. 2d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Defendant, originally sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, § 958.14, Fla. . . . defendant was denied credit for time served in state prison prior to his release on community control. § 958.14 . . .

WATTS, v. STATE SMITH, v. STATE, 542 So. 2d 425 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . treatment of youthful offenders upon revocation of probation or community control pursuant to section 958.14 . . . appeal these sentences, claiming that since they were initially sentenced as youthful offenders, section 958.14 . . . We agree with appellants’ position that the 1985 amendment to section 958.14 imposes a six year limitation . . . Crosby does contain a statement that section 958.14 as amended did not require the trial court to cap . . . However, as Crosby itself pointed out, the 1985 amendment to section 958.14 was not in effect when the . . .