ARTHUR RAY LARKIN, A/K/A FRANK MICHAEL REESE, 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.
In this second appeal of a sentencing matter, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a defendant's sentence for armed robbery, rejecting the defendant's challenge that the reasons given for retention were legally insufficient. The court determined that even if one reason was questionable, four other independently sufficient reasons supported retention, though it remanded to vacate retention as to one of two concurrent sentences.
The trial court's retention of jurisdiction was upheld because at least four of the five reasons given were independently sufficient to justify retention, even if one reason was questionable. However, the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction over both concurrent sentences for armed robbery and must vacate retention as to one of them.
[1] A trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a portion of a sentence may be affirmed if at least one of the stated reasons for retention is legally sufficient, even if…
[2] A trial court may retain jurisdiction over a sentence based on multiple independent reasons, rather than requiring all reasons to be valid.
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“We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that even if the first reason given by the trial court is questionable, the trial court would have retained jurisdiction on the basis of the other four, unquestionably sufficient reasons.”
Establishes the harmless error analysis applied by the court to uphold retention despite questioning one of five stated reasons.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur Ray Larkin committed armed robberies involving two victims (a pharmacist Howard Fisher and his 73-year-old father Lawrence Fisher) who were thr…
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.
This is the second appearance of this case, arising out of the defendant’s sentencing. On the first occasion, we affirmed the judgment and sentence but reversed the retention of jurisdiction over the first one-third of the sentence and remanded with direction so that defendant could be apprised of the reasons for retention prior to pronouncement of sentence. Larkin v. State, 474 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
The defendant now contends each of the five reasons given for retention were legally insufficient; and if any one of the five was such, the retention must be vacated. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that even if the first reason given by the trial court is questionable, the trial court would have retained jurisdiction on the basis of the other four, unquestionably sufficient reasons. The trial court, moreover, stated that it retained jurisdiction because of each of the reasons, not all of them.1 The trial court could not retain jurisdiction over both of the concurrent sentences for armed robbery, however, as the state acknowledges. Thomas v. State, 484 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction but remand for vacating retention as to one of the concurrent sentences.
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. .The five reasons given by the trial court were:
1. The trial testimony showed that the robberies involved the use of a .25 caliber automatic handgun.
2. The two innocent victims were threatened with death if they did not comply with the demands of the Defendant.
3. The victims, pharmacist Howard Fisher and Lawrence Fisher, were tied and bound with electrical cord and adhesive tape.
4. Seventy-three (73) year old victim Lawrence Fisher and his son Howard, went through thirty (30) minutes of terror and captivity at the hands of the Defendant.
5.Further, the Defendant has previously been convicted of Armed Robbery in three (3) other cases involving a total of five (5) innocent victims in our community who were threatened with death by the armed Defendant. Additionally, the Defendant was convicted on March 22, 1984 of Armed Kidnapping and Armed Robbery involving three more innocent victims.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jordan v. State, 474 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Talbert v. State, 474 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Thomas v. State, 484 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)