ALBERT EDWARD STROEMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1981-08-21
No. 80-259
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
410 So. 2d 1350 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1981)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over the sentences was an unconstitutional ex post facto application of a statute.


Facts & Procedural History

Albert Edward Stroemer was convicted of sexual batteries and robberies committed before a relevant statute became effective. The trial court retained …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Albert Edward Stroemer appeals his convictions and consecutive 99-year sentences for two sexual batteries and four robberies and the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the first third of each sentence pursuant to section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1978). We reverse the retention of jurisdiction, but otherwise affirm.

Because the offenses in question were committed on March 31, 1977, and section 947.16 did not become effective until June 19, 1978, the application of the statute to appellant’s sentences was ex post facto and therefore violative of his constitutional rights. State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1981); Rodriguez v. State, 380 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

We find no merit to the other points raised by appellant.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order retaining jurisdiction for the first third of appellant’s sentences is vacated. The cause is remanded for correction of the Uniform Commitments to Custody of the Department of Corrections. The judgments and sentences, since they made no reference to retention of jurisdiction, are affirmed as rendered.

BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw