JIMMY SHOFNER, JR., 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 a trial court must advise a defendant of the possibility of retaining jurisdiction over a portion of the sentence before accepting a guilty plea.
Shofner pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to fifteen years, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction over the first one-third. Shof…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Following the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, made pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Shofner appealed, contending the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the first one-third of his sentence. We agree and reverse.
Shofner was charged by information with two counts of armed robbery. He subsequently entered into a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend a sentence of ten years in return for his guilty plea. At the hearing, the trial court advised Shofner on several occasions that the State’s recommendation was not binding on the court and that he could receive a sentence ranging anywhere from probation to life imprisonment.
Thereafter, the trial court accepted his guilty plea, sentenced him to concurrent terms of fifteen years in prison on each count, and retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of the sentence pursuant to Section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1981). However, the trial court never advised Shofner of the possibility that jurisdiction might be retained.
If the trial court wishes to retain jurisdiction over a portion of a defendant’s sentence, it must, prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, advise the defendant of this possibility. State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1982); Viars v. State, 415 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Because Shofner was never so advised, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the first one-third of his sentence.
Accordingly, this case is remanded to allow the trial court either to strike the retention of jurisdiction or to allow Shofner to withdraw his guilty plea.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 459 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…tion is a significant consideration in the plea bargain arrangement which should be fully explained to a defendant before his plea is accepted, otherwise he would not be completely informed of the consequences of his plea. See also Shofner v. State, 433 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Ward v. State, 433 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 434 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Nor should there be any question that the defendant was disadvantaged by the sentence imposed. Admittedly the trial judge coul…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1982)
- Viars v. State, 415 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)