GEORGE W. MOBLEY, 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.
George W. Mobley appeals the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over one-half of his sentence, arguing that a statutory amendment to section 947.16, Florida Statutes constitutes an ex post facto violation. The court affirms, holding that the ex post facto challenge was not preserved for appeal because Mobley failed to object at trial.
The court affirms the trial court's judgment, holding that Mobley's ex post facto argument is without merit because he failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not objecting at the trial level, and the retention statute does not constitute fundamental error requiring sua sponte reversal.
[1] A defendant must object to the ex post facto application of a statute regarding the retention of jurisdiction over a sentence at the trial level to preserve the issue for…
[2] Failure to object to the retention of jurisdiction at the revocation of probation hearing or at conviction and sentencing waives the right to challenge it on appeal as an…
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“Appellant's argument that the court's retention of jurisdiction constitutes an ex post facto law is without merit.”
Establishes the court's determination that the ex post facto challenge fails on the merits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 14, 1981, Mobley was charged with robbery with a firearm, later amended to robbery with a deadly weapon. A second information for another robbe…
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 Driving With A Suspended License cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, George W. Mobley, is challenging the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-half of his sentence on the grounds that section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1981) was amended to provide an increase from one-third to one-half of the sentence after the date of commission of the offense. We affirm.
On May 14, 1981, appellant was charged by information with robbery with a firearm. On August 17, 1981, the information was amended to charge robbery with a deadly weapon. On August 19, 1981, appellant was charged by a second information with another incident of robbery with a firearm. On November 2, 1981, this information was amended to charge robbery with a deadly weapon. Appellant pled guilty to both informations and was placed on ten years probation on each charge to run concurrently.
On January 28, 1983, appellant was charged with violating Conditions V and VI of his probation. Condition V required appellant to remain at liberty without violating any law, while Condition VI required him not to use intoxicants to excess. At the probation revocation hearing, appellant pled guilty to driving an automobile with a suspended license and driving under the influence of alcohol. However, appellant pled not guilty to the charge of robbery.
Appellant was adjudicated guilty of robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ninety-nine years each and retained jurisdiction over one-half of each sentence. Appellant’s argument that the court’s retention of jurisdiction constitutes an ex post facto law is without merit. Appellant imposed no objection to the reten tion of jurisdiction at the revocation of probation hearing or at conviction and sentencing. In Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the court held that ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error, and an objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court based on Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Fredricks v. State.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…t fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Mobley v. State, 447 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA, February 24, 1984). Likewise, where retention of jurisdiction over a portion of a life sentence has been challenged, but no objection to such retention was made before the trial court, the issue has been held to be not preserved for ap…
-
Styles v. State, 465 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…l error, so there must be an objection in the trial court before the issue may be raised on direct appeal. Mills v. State, 462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1985); Cochran v. State, 468 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). See Springfield, Garmony and Mobley v. State, 447 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, because such a statute could be unconstitutionally applied to the particular defendant, the issue may be raised on a rule 3.850 motion. Third, where the sentence is alleged to be illegal because the retention of [*1372]…
-
Peterson v. State, 810 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…On appeal, Peterson also argues that this statute should not be retroactively applied to this case since it came into effect after the crime took place. However, we do not reach that issue because it was not raised at the trial. See Mobley v. State, 447 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Third, Peterson claims it was error to allow the introduction of the victim’s tape-recorded interview with the Child Protection Team, since the victim was present in the court…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)
- N.U., Inc. v. T & R Seafood, Inc., 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Buford Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)