STEVEN SNOW, 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 trial court complied with the statutory requirements for retaining jurisdiction over the offender.
The trial court retained jurisdiction over an offender convicted of sexual battery. The judge stated the justification for retaining jurisdiction on t…
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.
MILLS, Judge.
By its decision in Snow v. State, 443 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this Court declined to consider the issue raised by Snow on appeal because Snow failed to raise the issue in the trial court. By its decision in State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (1985), the Supreme Court quashed this Court’s decision and remanded the case for it to determine whether the trial court complied with Section 947.-16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). The trial court did comply and we affirm.
Section 947.16(3) provides that “in any case of a person convicted of ... sexual battery ... the judge may enter an order retaining jurisdiction over the offender....” Subsection (3)(a) states:
In retaining jurisdiction for the purposes of this act, the trial judge shall state the justification with individual particularity, and said justification shall be made a part of the court record.
In retaining jurisdiction the trial court stated on the record, “... because you did terrify, terrorize a 16-year-old girl, I feel that’s ample justification to retain jurisdiction for one-third of the sentence here imposed. ...”
The Supreme Court on page 1 of its opinion noted that “on the record, the trial judge stated his justification for retaining jurisdiction was that Snow terrified and terrorized a sixteen-year-old girl.”
It is clear that the trial judge complied with the explicit requirements of Section 947.16(3)(a).
Affirmed. This Court has complied with the Supreme Court’s mandate dated 5 February 1985.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1986)…ion of jurisdiction. The basis is therefore far from “vague and subjective.” Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Further, we find such animalistic criminality a proper basis for retention of jurisdiction. See Snow v. State, 464 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore quash the opinion below in part, affirm in part, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. McDonald, C…
-
Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…efendant intentionally inflicted both mental and physical pain upon all the victims without any show of remorse. We hold that these reasons were stated with sufficient particularity for the trial court to properly retain jurisdiction. Snow v. State, 464 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that trial court’s statement that the defendant “terrified and terrorized a sixteen-year-old girl” was sufficient to justify retention of jurisdiction). Because the defendant cannot demonstrate manifest injustice, colla…
-
Harris v. State, 584 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…the sentencing hearing and sentencing order reveals that the court did offer sufficient reasons for its retention of jurisdiction with adequate individual particularity to satisfy the requirements of section 947.-16(3). See generally Snow v. State, 464 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Harden v. State, 428 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Moore v. State, 392 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Further, the subsequent written reasons correspond with those expressed by the court in appellant’s presence at the sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1985)
- Snow v. State, 443 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Stewartson, 443 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)