SHERRY NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Williams appealed his conviction and 99-year sentence, challenging the constitutionality of Florida Statute Section 947.16(3), which allows trial courts to retain jurisdiction over felony convictees for up to one-third of the maximum sentence imposed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Williams failed to raise a sufficiently specific constitutional objection at trial.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that because Williams failed to raise a specific constitutional objection at trial—instead offering only vague references to 'serious constitutional questions'—no constitutional issue was properly preserved for appellate review, and the trial court's application of the statute was not erroneous.
[1] A statute allowing trial courts to retain jurisdiction over certain felony convicts for up to one-third of the maximum sentence imposed is constitutional.
[2] A general objection to a statute's constitutionality, without asserting specific constitutional issues, is insufficient to preserve a constitutional claim for appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The sole question presented is the constitutionality of Florida Statute, Section 947.16(3), which allows trial courts to retain jurisdiction over certain felony convictees for up to one-third of the maximum sentence imposed.”
Establishes the central legal issue on appeal regarding the validity of the statute permitting courts to retain jurisdiction for sentencing review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted for first-degree murder, initially entered a not guilty plea, and on September 8, 1978, withdrew that plea and entered a guilty …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court, Duval County. The sole question presented is the constitutionality of Florida Statute, Section 947.16(3), which allows trial courts to retain jurisdiction over certain felony convictees for up to one-third of the maximum sentence imposed.
The facts are that appellant, defendant below, was indicted for murder in the first degree and entered a plea of not guilty. On September 8, 1978, he was permitted to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to enter a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree. On October 13, 1978, following the presentence investigation and hearing of witnesses, appellant’s counsel argued in mitigation of sentence; and the State orally invoked Florida Statute, Section 947.16(3). The Court adjudged the defendant guilty and sentenced him to 99 years. The Court further entered a written order pursuant to Section 947.16(3) pointing out the particularly heinous nature of the crime and retaining jurisdiction over the defendant for review of any release order of the Parole and Probation Commission, pursuant to the Statute.
The record of the sentencing hearing reveals that appellant’s counsel objected to the invocation of Section 947.16(3) as follows:
[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL] “As far as the invocation of the Florida Statute, apparently recently passed, with the Court retaining jurisdiction, counsel for the State advised me of this approximately ten minutes before we came in before the Court, and as such I was certainly not in the position to explore the factual basis for it; however, I would object to the Court making findings for the invocation therefor without a full evidentiary hearing and the opportunity to present both sides of the question of whether or not it is appropriate in this case to invoke that particular section of the statute. I would couple it with the previous objections to the Constitutional grounds, both generally and as applied in this instance.”
The previous objection referred to above is counsel’s earlier statement that “I certainly believe there are serious constitutional questions relating to the statute . . . ” There was no definite constitutional issue asserted. The trial court did not rule on counsel’s objections on. constitutional grounds; and, in the absence of specific objection, no ruling on any constitutional issue can be implied from the trial court’s application of the statute. Harrell’s Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Air., 111 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla.1959).
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)…ent. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the statute at the sentencing hearing, but the First District Court of Appeal refused to consider the issue, ruling that the absence of a specific objection precluded its review. Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Petitioner first maintains that section 947.16(3) is an ex post facto law as [*511] applied to him. The offense for which he was charged occurred on March 29, 1978. The statute did not become effective until June 19, 1978. We r…
-
Arnett v. State, 397 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…pellant has not properly preserved his challenge to the statute. Appellant clearly objected to the invocation of Section 947.16(3) on specific constitutional grounds and the trial court ruled upon appellant’s challenges. Contrast, Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) [review granted Case No. 58,704]: Chatman v. State, 393 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Having disposed of these preliminary matters, we now consider the merits of appellant’s constitutional challenges. Appellant asserts Section…
-
Chatman v. State, 393 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ed to imprisonment for the first one-third of the term of imprisonment. However, the record reveals and the appellant concedes that absolutely no objection of any kind or at any time was made to such action in the trial court. See Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, we do not believe the appellant has properly preserved his challenge to the statute. This decision is rendered, however, without prejudice to the appellant to challenge the statute should his term of incarceration a…
Authorities Cited
- Harrell's Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth., 111 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1959)