Darrow v. State (789 So. 2d 552, 2001)

SHARP, W., J.

Darrow appeals from his ten-year sentence he received, after pleading nolo con-tendere to attempted robbery with a firearm. He sought to be sentenced as a Youthful Offender and all parties agree he met the required criteria. However, the trial court ruled the 1999 revision to section 775.087(2)(a) (known as the 10-20-life statute) superseded the Youthful Offender Act and mandated that the court impose a sentence pursuant to the statute. The trial court stated it would have sentenced Darrow as a Youthful Offender had it been allowed to do so. We disagree and reverse.

In State v. Wooten, 782 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), our sister court upheld a trial court’s ruling that the minimum mandatory provisions of the 10-20-life statute do not supersede the Youthful Offender sentencing provisions. And in State v. Krasky, 789 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we affirmed a similar ruling, citing to Wooten.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Youthful Offender Statute.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for Resentencing.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.