IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., A CHILD, 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 retaining jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent, even after announcing the next case, does not constitute an improper sentence enhancement if the sentence has not yet begun to be served.
[1] A trial court's retention of jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent is not an improper enhancement of sentence if the sentencing proceeding has not concluded and the…
[2] The calling of the next case on the docket does not necessarily signify the conclusion of a prior sentencing proceeding.
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 intelligenceAppellant was adjudicated delinquent and committed. The court then announced the next case but also stated it was retaining jurisdiction. Appellant ob…
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 Ex Post Facto Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
After being found guilty of robbing a convenience store, the appellant was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The court further ordered that appellant be placed in the Boys’ School at Marianna. After a brief inquiry into the ability of appellant’s mother to make restitution, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Okay ....
Next case.
MR. CONGDON [state attorney]: Quinton Brown and Odis Griffin.
MR. YOUNG [attorney for HRS]: Does the Court retain jurisdiction of [A.L.] THE COURT: Right. And I want you to note something else, that that was ordered that he be sent to Marianna, too. We’re going to test the new system. I want you to test that through HRS. MR. CUMMINGS: Judge, I’d like to object to you retaining jurisdiction on that. The next case had been called.
Appellant argues that the retention of jurisdiction constituted an improper enhancement of his sentence in violation of double jeopardy because the sentencing proceeding had been concluded. Assuming, without deciding, that a trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over an adjudicated delinquent constitutes an enhancement of sentence,1 we find no error in this case. It is not clear that the sentencing proceeding had in fact been concluded by the court’s utterance of the words “next case.” However, it is clear that appellant had not begun to serve his sentence when the announcement was made. Under these circumstances, there was no error in the sentencing. See Rizzo v. State, 430 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 365 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . In State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1981), the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the first one third of a defendant’s sentence, pursuant to a statute enacted after the commission of his crime, was held to be an ex post facto violation in that it empowered the trial court to disregard the prisoner’s gain time credit when being considered for parole.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1981)
- Abreau v. State, 365 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Rizzo v. State, 430 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)