JERRY LYNN ABBOTT, 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.
The court held that the trial court's statement of reasons for retaining jurisdiction was legally insufficient because it lacked particularity.
Appellant pled guilty to armed robbery and kidnapping and was sentenced. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of the armed r…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The appellant pled guilty to charges of armed robbery and kidnapping, and was sentenced to 60 years imprisonment on the former count and to a consecutive 30-year term of probation on the latter. He appeals the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction, pursuant to § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat., over the first one-third of his sentence for the armed robbery. Appellant argues, inter alia, that even though the trial judge did state on the record his reasons for retaining jurisdiction, the statement of reasons given was legally insufficient. We agree and reverse.
In stating his ground for retaining jurisdiction, the trial judge simply referred to the “circumstances surrounding the particular incidents ... the nature of both offenses ... the seriousness of the offenses . . . and the gravity of the offenses . ..,” without citing any of the facts or circumstances of the crimes. This statement does not satisfy the requirement of § 947.-16(3)(a) that justification for retention of jurisdiction be stated with individual particularity. Although the trial judge included in his statement somewhat more specific references to “the conditions under which the victim was submitted” and “the losses to the victim,” here, again, there was no statement as to what was done to the victim or what his losses were.
Because we find that the trial court’s statement of justification for retention of jurisdiction fails to satisfy the statutory requirement of specificity and particularity, we need not consider appellant’s remaining arguments. This case is remanded with instructions to the trial court to either relinquish retention of jurisdiction or to enter an order setting out the particular facts and circumstances of the crime, or the particular characteristics and propensities of the appellant, which justify a retention of jurisdiction.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…e “circumstances surrounding the particular incidents,” “the nature of both offenses,” “the seriousness of the offenses,” and “the gravity of the offenses,” without setting out any specific facts and circumstances of the crimes. See Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (statement of justification for retention of jurisdiction under § 947.16(3) failed to satisfy statute’s “specificity and particularity” requirement); Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (sentencing judge failed t…
-
Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…te, 409 So. 2d 1031, 1038 (Fla. 1982) (failure of trial court to make any findings justifying retention vacated and cause remanded so that findings may be made). In view of this court’s previous decisions in retention appeals, e.g., Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), I concur in the court’s decision to reverse on this ground. However, I favor certifying to the Supreme Court the following question as one of great public importance: D…1 / 2
-
Elario Suraz Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…82), review pending by the Supreme Court, Case No. 62,537. The sentencing judge did not state his justifications for the retention of jurisdiction with sufficient particularity. The justification stated was very similar to that in Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which the court below did not have benefit of, and no purpose is served by repeating that discussion. The retention is reversed and the case is remanded for either entry of proper justification or striking of the retention.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence