RONALD COLLIER GASKINS, 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.
Ronald Collier Gaskins appeals his conviction and life sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon, raising claims about speedy trial violations and the trial court's authority to retain jurisdiction over one-third of a life sentence. The court affirms, finding the speedy trial argument meritless and the sentencing challenge procedurally barred because not properly preserved for appeal.
The speedy trial claim fails as a matter of Florida law. The sentencing challenge is procedurally barred because the defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal by raising it before the trial court through objection at sentencing or post-trial motion.
[1] Placing a detainer upon a defendant already in custody for one offense does not precipitate the running of the speedy trial period for a second offense giving rise to the…
[2] A defendant must preserve an objection to a trial court's sentence by raising it before the trial court, either at the time of sentencing or through an appropriate post-t…
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“placing a detainer upon a defendant already in custody for one offense precipitates the running of the speedy trial period for the second offense giving rise to the detainer. This is clearly contrary to Florida law.”
Establishes that the speedy trial argument is meritless under Florida law and cites controlling precedent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGaskins was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to life imprisonment. A detainer had been placed on him while he was already in cu…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*133] COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Ronald Collier Gas-kins, appeals from a judgment of conviction and life sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon. He first contends that he should have been discharged because of speedy trial violations, which contention is predicated on the proposition that placing a detainer upon a defendant already in custody for one offense precipitates the running of the speedy trial period for the second offense giving rise to the detainer. This is clearly contrary to Florida law. State v. Bassham, 352 So. 2d 55 (Fla.1977); Cameron v. State, 376 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979).
The main thrust of the appeal is the argument that a trial judge cannot retain jurisdiction over “the first third of the maximum sentence imposed” under section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (1979), when that sentence is life, because the period of retention cannot be calculated. However interesting this point may be, it was not preserved below for this appeal. The only objection to the sentence was that the trial court, at the time of imposition, was not aware of the defendant’s prior record, a point not raised by this appeal.
The question of the validity of retaining jurisdiction of the first third of a sentence was never presented to the trial court, either by way of objection at the time of sentence or by way of an appropriate post-trial motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Objections to trial court sentences, as we previously have held, first should be raised before the trial court. Barlow v. State, 388 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1980); Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA), approved, 394 So. 2d 407 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, the judgment below is
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER J., concurs.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.
COWART, Judge,
concurring specially:
I would consider the merits of appellant’s point and hold that the statute providing for retention of jurisdiction over parole releases is applicable to all convictions of robbery without regard to whether the sentence imposed is for a specific term or for life and that we need not now decide the consequences of a retention of jurisdiction under the statute as to a life sentence. Therefore, I concur only in the result of the majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…Likewise, where retention of jurisdiction over a portion of a life sentence has been challenged, but no objection to such retention was made before the trial court, the issue has been held to be not preserved for appellate review. Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We therefore conclude that Cofield’s failure to make any objection to the court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-half of his consecutive life sentences precludes him from challenging such retention by direct appeal. In reac…
-
Buford Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…e for review by direct appeal.1 Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. OTT, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . Our holding is without prejudice to appellant seeking relief in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.…
-
Brumley v. State, 455 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…erred in retaining jurisdiction was not preserved for appeal because no objection was made below. This position, is arguable under Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982) and is one which we had previously adopted [see, e.g., Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) ], but this principle has apparently been rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013, (Fla.1984),-where the court held that the purpose for which the contemporaneous objection rule exists is not pre…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Bassham, 352 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1977)
- Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Smith v. State, 394 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1980)
- Barlow v. State, 388 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Cameron v. State, 376 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)