CARLOS BATEMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court denied Bateman's petition for review, holding that the district court's decision did not create an express and direct conflict with prior precedent regarding the state attorney's role in sentencing reduction motions under Florida's drug sentencing statute.
The Supreme Court held that no express and direct conflict existed between the district court's decision and Benitez. The district court's holding that the sentencing court lacks authority to reduce a sentence absent a motion by the state attorney, and that good faith review of the defendant's assistance claim is proper, is consistent with Benitez.
[1] A district court's decision does not create an express and direct conflict with a prior supreme court decision if the district court's ruling is consistent with the supre…
[2] A sentencing court lacks the authority to reduce a sentence under a statute that requires a motion by the state attorney, absent such a motion.
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 intelligence“absent a motion by the state attorney, pursuant to section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1981), the sentencing court lacks the authority under subsection (3) to reduce the sentence”
Establishes the prerequisite that a state attorney motion is necessary for the sentencing court to have authority to reduce a sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBateman was convicted of a drug violation and sought a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance provided to authorities. The district court …
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 Express And Direct Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction in this case because of apparent express and direct conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and our decision in State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla.1981). After reading the briefs on the merits and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the Second District’s decision before us does not expressly and directly conflict with Benitez.
In the present case, the district court holds that absent a motion by the state attorney, pursuant to section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1981),* the sentencing court lacks the authority under subsection (3) to reduce the sentence. The district court additionally concluded that it was convinced from a review of the record that the state attorney acted in good faith in refusing to move for reduction and noted that the state attorney, in fact, had demonstrated to the sentencing court that defendant’s information was stale, cumulative, partially untrue, and insufficient. This decision does not conflict with, but rather is consistent with, our decision in Benitez.
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. *
This subsection provides in pertinent part:
(3) The state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators, or principals_ The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if he finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2005)…e same question of law, see Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 861 So. 2d 429 (Fla.2004) (granting review), further analysis reveals no conflict. I would therefore discharge the petition for review as improvidently granted. See, e.g., Bateman v. State, 446 So. 2d 97, 97 (Fla.1984) (“After reading the briefs on the merits and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the ... decision before us does not expressly and directly conflict with [another district court decision].”). The majority concludes that the decis…
-
Sanders v. City OF Orlando, 997 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008)…); and Covert v. Hall, 467 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). These cases do not interpret the particular subsection of the statute at issue here. I would therefore discharge the petition for review as improvidently granted. See, e.g., Bateman v. State, 446 So. 2d 97, 97 (Fla.1984) (“After reading the briefs on the merits and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the ... decision before us does not expressly and directly conflict with [another district court decision].”). In Flamily, the First District held t…
-
Duckham v. State, 478 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1985)…e the transportation, carriage, conveyance, concealment, receipt, possession, purchase, sale, barter, exchange, or giving away of any contraband article.” . This Court dismissed jurisdiction of 1979 Toyota Corolla in Mora v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 446 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1984). . 21 U.S.C. § 881, part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, contains a similar forfeiture provision to that contained in §§ 932.701-.704. In construing § 881 numerous federal courts have upheld or ordered…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)