JOE LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 erred in denying post-conviction relief without attaching the record justifying its retention of jurisdiction over the sentence.
Appellant challenged the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence, arguing the court failed to state any reason for it. …
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 Over Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Williams appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His motion attacks the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-third of the seventy-five-year sentence imposed upon him by succinctly stating that the trial court failed to state any reason for retaining jurisdiction. The form order denying relief recites, inter alia, that “the Court having examined the said Motion and finding that the allegations contained therein do not constitute legal grounds for granting a new trial or release of the prisoner,” the motion is denied.
Having been furnished nothing other than the motion and the order denying same, we must reverse the order denying relief and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to attach that part of the record that sets forth the “justification with individual particularity” for retention of jurisdiction, or, if no such record now exists, to make one. On the record before us, the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction is unlawful, see § 947.16(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and the motion unquestionably set forth a legal ground showing that the “sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” See Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850.
If, as we suspect, there was some proper basis for denying the motion, a good deal of judicial labor would have been saved by making that basis appear of record rather than signing an inappropriate perfunctory order denying relief. If the record did not reflect the required statement of justification for retention of jurisdiction, then a good deal of judicial labor would have been saved by the trial court having immediately recognized and corrected this deficiency.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…448 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, this court has also held that the absence of such findings is a matter which can be raised by motion for post-conviction relief. See Williams v. State, 473 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 435 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). That being so, defendant was not barred from raising the point in his Rule 3.850 motion. Third, turning to the merits of de- ■ fendant’s claim, see Marshall v. Dugger, [*1327] 526 So. 2d at 146, we find no deficiency with respec…
Authorities Cited
- Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)