EXCILIA DUQUE, 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 trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the sentence for solicitation, as it is not an enumerated felony and did not involve a deadly weapon or violence.
The appellant was convicted of solicitation after being charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy. The jury found her guilty of solicitation but…
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 Conspiracy To Commit First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Excilia Duque, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon her pursuant to a jury verdict finding her guilty of the crime of solicitation. The appellant was charged with first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and solicitation with intent to commit a felony, to wit: first degree murder. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the solicitation charge and not guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to serve thirty years in state prison. The trial judge, pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1981), retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of the appellant’s sentence.
The appellant first raises several arguments in support of her contention that her conviction for solicitation should be reversed. Because these arguments lack merit, we decline to address them and, accordingly, affirm the appellant’s conviction.
We agree, however, with the appellant’s contention that the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of her sentence. Section 947.16 authorizes retention of jurisdiction for certain enumerated felonies and for any felony involving the use of a firearm or other deadly weapon or the use of intentional violence. Since the crime of solicitation is not one of the enumerated felonies and the appellant’s actions in committing the offense of solicitation did not involve the use of a firearm, deadly weapon, or intentional violence, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the appellant’s sentence. See Faircloth v. State, 479 So. 2d 779 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 638 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
We, accordingly, affirm the judgment and sentence of thirty years imprisonment, but strike the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the sentence.
Affirmed as modified.
HALL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 864 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…death penalty. The court found that the solicitation convictions were not prior violent felonies because, according to the statutory definition of solicitation, “violence is not an inherent element of this offense.” Id. at 1314.1 In Duque v. State, 526 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court considered whether solicitation to commit murder in [*1153] volved the use of intentional violence within the meaning of section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1981). This statute authorized the trial judge to retain jur…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Junior Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Faircloth v. State, 479 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)