ANTHONY HAYES, 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.
Anthony Hayes appealed his conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence when the amended statute limited such retention to one-third.
The amended statute should be applied to Hayes because doing so would not constitute an illegal ex post facto application, as it is not disadvantageous to the defendant. The conviction is affirmed, but the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the sentence to reflect retention of jurisdiction over only one-third rather than one-half.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed if no merit is found in the issues raised by the defendant regarding alleged trial errors.
[2] When a statute is amended to reduce the maximum amount of jurisdiction a judge can retain over a sentence, the amended statute should be applied if the defendant was sent…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In this case, applying the amended statute to a defendant who committed the crime prior to the effective date of the statute but who was sentenced after that effective date would not be disadvantageous to the defendant and, therefore, would not be an illegal ex post facto application.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that ex post facto concerns do not apply when a more lenient statute is applied retroactively.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 99 years, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence. The …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for second degree murder. We find no merit in the issues raised by defendant regarding errors allegedly occurring at trial. Therefore, we affirm the conviction.
As to his sentence, defendant contends that the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction over one-half of the 99-year sentence imposed. We agree. Section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (1983), was amended to reduce the maximum amount of jurisdiction that a judge could retain from one-half to one-third of a sentence. The amendment was effective June 15, 1983. Defendant argues that the amended statute should have been applied to his sentencing on June 22, 1983.
This court has previously held that when section 947.16(3) was amended to increase the portion of a sentence over which a trial judge could retain jurisdiction, the correct statute to be applied was the statute in effect on the date the crime was committed, not the statute in effect on the date the defendant was sentenced. See Reid v. State, 440 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wicker v. State, 438 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, that result was necessary to prevent an ex post facto application of a more severe punishment to a defendant who had committed the crime prior to the effective date of the amendment. In this case, applying the amended statute to a defendant who committed the crime prior to the effective date of the statute but who was sentenced after that effective date would not be disadvantageous to the defendant and, therefore, would not be an illegal ex post facto application. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1981); Cunningham v. State, 423 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Such an application would carry out the legislative intent of the statutory revision reducing the length of time for which a trial court can retain jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the conviction is AFFIRMED, but the case is REMANDED for correction of the sentence to reflect the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over only one-third of the sentence.
OTT, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…sentencing, the trial court could only have retained up to one-third, which was the law in effect at the [*1061] time of the offense. To allow retention up to one-half would be an ex post facto application of the 1982 amendment. See: Hayes v. State, 448 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) [9 FLW 846]; Reid v. State, 440 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…
-
Brumley v. State, 455 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…une 15, 1983, the legislature had amended section 947.16(3) to permit retention of jurisdiction over one-third of a defendant’s sentence, instead of one-half, and defendant was sentenced after that date. We agree with the decision in Hayes v. State, 448 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), that because the period of retention was reduced, the law in effect at the time of sentencing should prevail. The State’s contention is that the issue as to whether the court erred in retaining jurisdiction was not preserved for…
-
Hayes v. State, 452 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. On May 30, 1984, the state filed a motion to recall and modify the mandate which was issued on April 27, 1984, in this case pursuant to our opinion which was filed April 11, 1984, 448 So. 2d 84. The state alleged in its motion that after the time period for filing a motion for rehearing had expired, the case of Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976), came to the state’s attention. The state alleged that our opinion conflicts with Castle…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Williams, 397 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1981)
- Reid v. State, 440 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Wicker v. State, 438 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Cunningham v. State, 423 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)