STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT EARL BRUMLEY, 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.
A defendant is not precluded from challenging a trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a sentence on direct appeal, even without a contemporaneous objection, if the retention exceeds statutory limits.
[1] A defendant is not precluded from challenging on direct appeal a trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a portion of a sentence when the retention exceeds statutory…
[2] When a trial court fails to follow mandatory requirements of a sentencing statute, a defendant may raise this issue on appeal without having objected in the trial court.
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 intelligenceRespondent was convicted and sentenced for multiple felonies. The trial court announced it would retain jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence, ex…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have before us by petition for review Brumley v. State, 455 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), wherein the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
Whether, by operation of the contemporaneous objection rule, a defendant is precluded from challenging, on direct appeal, the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-half of his sentence when no objection to such retention is made at the time of sentencing?
Id. at 1097. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Respondent was charged with, convicted of and sentenced concurrently for burglary with an assault, robbery, false imprisonment and kidnapping. The convictions and sentences were entered subsequent to the effective date of section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983), which reduced the maximum retained jurisdiction period to one-third of the sentence. The trial judge announced in open court at sentencing that he would retain jurisdiction over one-half of respondent’s sentence, and defense counsel did not object. The court subsequently issued an order retaining jurisdiction over one-half of the maximum sentence imposed.
On appeal, the district court affirmed the convictions, but remanded the cause to the trial court to amend each sentence to reflect that jurisdiction was limited to not more than one-third of each sentence. The state has petitioned for review to allow this Court to answer the certified question, and we do so in the negative.
The instant case is controlled by State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1985), wherein we held that where the trial court fails to follow the mandatory requirements of the sentencing statute, a defendant may not be precluded from raising this point on appeal because he failed to object in the trial court. The decision of the district court to remand the cause to the trial court to amend the sentences to reflect that jurisdiction is limited to no more than one-third of each sentence is approved.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Walcott, 472 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1985)…defendant is precluded from challenging, on direct appeal, the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-half of his sentence [*742] when no objection to such retention is made at the time of sentencing? On the authority of State v. Brumley, 471 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1985), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court. Respondent was charged with and convicted of burglary of a structure under section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court sent…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1985)
- Brumley v. State, 455 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)