RUFUS EARL HAMPTON, 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.
Conviction affirmed but remand required because trial court retained jurisdiction over first third of 120-year sentence without stating particularized justification as required by statute.
When a trial court retains jurisdiction under Florida law, it must state the justification with individual particularity in the sentencing order, and failure to do so requires remand for the court to either relinquish jurisdiction or provide the required justification.
[1] When a trial court retains jurisdiction over a portion of a sentence, it must state the justification with individual particularity in the sentencing order, and failure t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In retaining jurisdiction for the purposes of this act, the trial court judge shall state the justification with individual particularity, and said justification shall be made a part of the order.”
Statutory requirement from section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), establishing mandatory particularity in retention of jurisdiction orders.
Appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery and sentenced to 120 years total, with the court retaining jurisdiction over the first third of the …
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Appellant raises four points on appeal in seeking reversal of his conviction and sentence. We find these arguments meritless except for the point on retention of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery and sentenced to a total of 120 years. The court retained jurisdiction over the first third of this 120-year sentence without stating with particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. At the sentencing hearing, the State was requested to submit an order detailing the justification for retention of jurisdiction. Although the State Attorney agreed to prepare the order, it is not present in the file and was apparently never submitted to the court for signature. Section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), clearly requires a specific justification. The statute provides as follows:
In retaining jurisdiction for the purposes of this act, the trial court judge shall state the justification with individual particularity, and said justification shall be made a part of the order. Thus, we remand to the trial court with instructions to either relinquish jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence or state with individual particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. See Oliver v. State, 414 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The conviction is affirmed and the matter remanded for further sentencing procedures.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McINTYRE v. Nance Ruth McINTYRE, 452 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…eral welfare of the children will be served by a change of custody, but that it mil be detrimental to the children if custody is not changed. (Emphasis added.) 220 So. 2d at 439. To similar effect are Johnson v. Johnson, supra; Lisenby v. Lisenby, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In Stricklin v. Stricklin, 383 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the court, stated: The order changing custody need not include a finding that the prior custodial parent…
-
Loleta Robin Johnson v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…e record for evidence tending to show, as required for change of custody previously ordered by judicial decree, that the mother’s custody substantially changed the child’s living conditions in a way adversely affecting the child. Lisenby v. Lisenby, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Putting aside credibility questions as beyond our province, we find substantial competent evidence that the child’s welfare was in fact adversely affected in the mothe…
-
Williams v. State, 456 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…atutes (Supp.1982) or relinquish jurisdiction over the first half of the sentence. Mobley v. State, 409 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1982); Saname v. State, 448 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hampton v. State, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Retention of jurisdiction vacated; remanded with instructions.…
Authorities Cited
- Oliver v. State, 414 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Tsavaris v. State, 414 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)