JOHNNY MURRAY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a 99-year robbery sentence where the trial court retained jurisdiction over half the sentence, holding that the defendant's failure to raise constitutional and procedural challenges before appeal rendered them unreviewable.
A defendant who fails to raise challenges to a trial court's retention of jurisdiction over half a sentence before appeal cannot raise those challenges for the first time on appeal.
[1] A defendant who fails to raise constitutional or procedural objections to a sentence before appeal cannot raise them for the first time on appeal.
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 intelligenceJohnny Murray pleaded guilty to robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 99 years imprisonment, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction o…
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 Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Chief Judge.
Johnny Murray pled guilty to robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to ninety-nine years imprisonment, and the trial court retained jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence.
In this appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction on three grounds: (1) that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence where he was not given notice of that possibility prior to acceptance of the guilty plea, (2) that section 947.16, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), permitting retention of jurisdiction over one-half of a defendant’s sentence, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him, and (3) that the trial court’s stated justifications were insufficient to warrant the retention of jurisdiction.
In Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), this court held that section 947.16, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982), is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law on its face. The remaining points are raised for the first time on appeal and are therefore not reviewable by this court. Springfield; see also Everett v. State, 442 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Defendant’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED without prejudice to his ability to file a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
BOARDMAN and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Alioto, 588 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ins v. State, 533 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1989) and Mosely v. State, 503 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1987). The state relied at the suppression hearing on State v. Whitfield, 444 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). All of these cases either expressly or impliedly rely on a test to determine whether or not a person was in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings that is now obsolete. See, e.g., B.L. v. State, 425 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 3d D…
-
KEE v. State, 504 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…determining whether one is in custody for Miranda purposes. The four factors include: 1) probable cause to arrest; 2) subjective intent of police; 3) subjective belief of the defendant; and 4) focus of the investigation. See also State v. Whitfield, 444 So. 2d 1154, 1156, n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Testimony in the record here indicates that when appellant reappeared at the police station on the afternoon of September 17, 1985 no grounds yet existed for her arrest. She admitted that no one had told her she was…
-
Extra Augustine v. State, 523 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…” because he had become the focus of the deputies’ investigation, he was not free to leave, and after the deputies had viewed what they apparently believed to be cocaine in the matchbox, they had probable cause to arrest him. See State v. Whitfield, 444 So. 2d 1154, 1156 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Here, it is unnecessary to apply the “fairly susceptible” test to the testimony “He didn’t say nothing” because in the context in which the comment was made, it is clearly a direct comment on the appellant’s silence. S…
Authorities Cited
- Buford Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Blaine Everett v. State, 442 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)