STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RANDALL WALCOTT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant is not precluded by the contemporaneous objection rule from challenging on direct appeal a trial court's improper retention of jurisdiction over a sentence, even absent an objection at sentencing. The court vacated the retention of jurisdiction because the trial court lacked statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over the defendant's burglary sentence.
A defendant is not precluded by the contemporaneous objection rule from raising on appeal a trial court's failure to follow mandatory requirements of the sentencing statute. The retention of jurisdiction was error and was vacated.
[1] A defendant is not precluded from challenging the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a sentence on direct appeal when no objection to such retention is made at…
[2] Where a trial court fails to follow the mandatory requirements of a sentencing statute, a defendant may raise this issue on appeal even without a contemporaneous objectio…
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“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?”
The certified question of great public importance that the Supreme Court was asked to answer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandall Walcott was convicted of burglary of a structure under Florida Statutes § 810.02(3) and sentenced to five years in prison. The trial court ret…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, in Walcott v. State, 460 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla.5th DCA 1984), which 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?
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 sentenced respondent to a five-year prison term and retained jurisdiction over his sentence to the extent allowed by law. Defense counsel objected to the retention of jurisdiction, arguing that the evidence did not warrant it. The conviction and the sentence were subsequently entered on June 28, 1983, wherein the trial court retained jurisdiction for one-half of respondent’s sentence.
Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983), permits the retention of jurisdiction in sentences for certain enumerated offenses which do not include the offense for which respondent was convicted. Consequently, there was no statutory basis for the retention of jurisdiction under the statute.
The state argues that respondent waived his right to directly appeal this retention of jurisdiction because he failed to make a contemporaneous objection at his sentencing hearing. We disagree.
In Brumley, the defendant was convicted and sentenced concurrently for numerous offenses. The trial court, at his sentencing, retained jurisdiction over one-half of his sentence when the maximum period allowable under the statute was one-third. Defense counsel did not object at the hearing but raised the issue for the first time on appeal. In that case, 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.” 471 So. 2d at 1282.
In the present case, the trial court had no statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over the defendant’s sentence, and we agree with the district court that it was error to do so.
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court to vacate the retention of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)…of sentencing, the defendant could not appeal the illegal sentence. Accord Merchant v. State, 509 So. 2d 1101, 1102 (Fla.1987); Joyce v. State, 466 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Walcott v. State, 460 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), approved, 472 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985); Crews v. State, 456 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985). The same logic applies equally to illegal conditions of probation. Miller v. State, 407 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); DiOrio v. State,…
-
State v. Cleve Andrew Mobley, 481 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1986)…at sentencing. We approve the decision of the district court. If a trial court has no statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over a defendant’s sentence, failure to object in the trial court will not preclude appellate review. State v. Walcott, 472 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985). There is no statutory authority for retention of jurisdiction over an indeterminate sentence. Echols v. State, 484 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Sept. 19,1985); Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we approve the de…
-
Noguet v. State, 508 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ruling. See DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005, 104 S.Ct. 995, 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984); State v. Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (en banc); Walcott v. State, 460 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), aff'd 472 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985); Chapin v. State, 458 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), modified on other grounds, 486 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1986). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Walcott v. State, 460 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. Brumley, 471 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)