SYE CHRISTOPHER JENKINS, 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.
Florida Supreme Court held that failure to object at sentencing does not waive the right to appeal a trial court's failure to enter a written order justifying retention of jurisdiction under section 947.16(3), and remanded for resentencing in compliance with the statute.
Failure to object at the time of sentencing does not waive the right to appeal the trial court's failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for retaining jurisdiction over a portion of a defendant's sentence.
[1] Failure to object at sentencing to a trial court's failure to enter a written order justifying retention of jurisdiction under section 947.16(3) does not waive the right…
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 intelligence“Failure to object at the time of sentencing does not waive the right to appeal the trial court's failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the statute.”
The Court's holding regarding waiver of appellate rights for sentencing defects.
Jenkins was sentenced with the trial court retaining jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence without entering a written order setting forth justif…
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 Sentencing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We review the decision of the district court in Jenkins v. State, 448 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) because of direct and express conflict with State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
The facts of the case and issues of law are set forth in the district court decision, which we approve except in one regard. The district court held that the defendant, by failure to object contemporaneously, had waived his right to appeal the trial court’s failure to enter a written order setting forth justification for retaining jurisdiction over one-third of defendant’s sentence. In State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1985), this Court held that the rule enunciated in Rhoden is applicable to retention of jurisdiction pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). Failure to object at the time of sentencing does not waive the right to appeal the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the statute.
The decision of the district court is approved in part and quashed in part and remanded to the trial court for resentencing in compliance with section 947.16(3).
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willingham v. State, 541 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…session is not adequate for purposes of imposing the three-year mandatory minimum provision under section 775.087(2)2; possession under that subsection must be direct. Jenkins v. State, 448 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), reversed on other grounds, 466 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1985); Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1978). A plain reading of section 775.087(1) would be to require proof that Willingham actually carried or used a firearm during the course of the offense.…
-
Zanger v. State, 561 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…the incident, so threatening the victims while displaying a handgun was an impermissible basis for departure. Cf. Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977); Jenkins v. State, 448 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved in part, quashed in part, 466 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1985). Likewise, the rationale that excessive force was used is impermissible based on the facts of this case. The jury refused to find excessive force was used by this defendant since it acquitted him of an armed kidnapping charge and convicte…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1985)
- Sye Christopher Jenkins v. State, 448 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)