ROBERT W. CAHILL, 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 a general statement of prior criminal activity is insufficient reason for a trial court to retain jurisdiction over a portion of a sentence.
Following a prior appeal, the defendant was resentenced and chose not to be sentenced under the guidelines. The trial court retained jurisdiction over…
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
DANAHY, Judge.
Robert W. Cahill appeals his sentence following our affirmance of his judgment and reversal of his sentence in Cahill v. State, 467 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We again reverse for resentencing.
At his resentencing hearing on June 28, 1985, Cahill chose not to be sentenced under the guidelines and was sentenced to ninety-nine years for kidnapping. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of the sentence. On appeal Cahill contends that the trial court erred by failing to state with individual particularity the reasons for retaining jurisdiction. We agree and reverse.
The only reason given by the court for retaining jurisdiction was this statement on the sentence: “Defendant has prior criminal activity.” This is not a sufficient reason to retain jurisdiction over the jail sentence of a criminal defendant. It does not satisfy the requirement of section 947.-16(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for individual particularity. Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 425 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We reverse for resentencing at which time the trial court will either relinquish its retention of jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence or state its justification for retention with individual particularity as required by the statute.
RYDER, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacIas v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ly inconsistent with the jury verdict; others are vague, conclusory, insubstantial, and, without dispute, unsupported by the record. None, either individually or collectively, justify the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction. See Cahill v. State, 489 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Owen v. State, 441 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), motion denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984). The order under review denying the defendant’s motion to correct illegal sente…
-
Jackson v. State, 497 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…he motion after finding it to be legally insufficient to justify relief. We find that appellant might be entitled to relief if he establishes the allegations set forth in his motion. See State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1982) and Cahill v. State, 489 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach the portions of the record and files which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief or to order the State Attorney to file an answer or other…
-
Percival M. Marshall v. Dugger, 526 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…84). Clearly, the statement of the trial court in the instant case does not achieve these purposes and does not comply with the statutory requirements that the reason for retention be stated with, “... individual particularity”. See Cahill v. State, 489 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, supra. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to state with particularity the reasons for retention of jurisdiction in accordance with the holdings in Thomas v. State, supra; Robinson v. State, supr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cahill v. State, 467 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sims v. State, 487 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Wright v. State, 425 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)