EDWARD SCOTT BEARDEN, 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 court held that the grand theft conviction could not stand as it was nol-prossed, and mandatory minimums and jurisdiction retention on other sentences were improperly imposed.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and grand theft, receiving consecutive sentences. The grand theft count was nol-pro…
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 Nol Pros cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary with an assault or while armed with a dangerous weapon, and grand theft. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum for the first degree murder, seventy-five years imprisonment for the robbery, and seventy-five years imprisonment for the burglary. Appellant’s substantive issues are without merit; however, the judgment and sentences are incongruous with the proceedings below.
The conviction for grand theft cannot stand because the grand theft count in the indictment was nol-prossed in open court. The written sentences for robbery and burglary reflect twenty-five year mandatory minimums for drug trafficking, but the offenses for which appellant was charged and convicted did not involve drugs. Thus, the twenty-five year mandatory mínimums on these two sentences must be stricken from the written orders.
The trial court also erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the robbery sentence and one-third of the burglary sentence. The written sentences must be changed to indicate that jurisdiction was retained over one-third of the total consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla. Stat. (1983); Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
We reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand the case for correction of the written sentences for robbery and burglary.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sowell v. State, 88 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…olestation because these counts were orally nolle prossed pri- or to trial. Sowell claims, and the State concedes, that the two lewd and lascivious counts were orally nolle prossed at a pretrial hearing and should be vacated. See Bearden v. State, 481 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also Wilkins v. State, 90 So. 3d 305, 2012 WL 178379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The record supports this assertion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the charges were refiled. Sowell also argues that because the…
-
Bearden v. State, 252 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…in v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Emmett v. State, 764 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Washington v. State, 752 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc); Bearden v. State, 481 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Adams v. State, 435 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…