FRANCIS T. HEATH, 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.
Trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-half rather than one-third of sentences and in retaining jurisdiction over portions of consecutive sentences rather than one-third of the total, requiring reversal and remand.
A trial court must apply the retention statute in effect at the time of conviction and sentencing, not at the time of the offense, and must retain jurisdiction over one-third of the total consecutive sentences rather than portions of each sentence.
[1] When a statute governing judicial retention of sentencing jurisdiction is amended between the commission of an offense and conviction and sentencing, the version in effec…
[2] A trial court must retain jurisdiction over one-third of the total of consecutive sentences imposed, not over one-third of each individual consecutive sentence.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant committed offenses on January 23, 1983, when the retention statute allowed retention of one-half of sentences, but was convicted and sentenc…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant’s motion to correct sentence, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), is meritorious for two reasons. First, the trial court erred by retaining jurisdiction over one-half, rather than one-third, of the sentences imposed upon appellant. The retention statute in effect at the time appellant was convicted and sentenced should have been applied, rather than the statute in effect at the time the offense was committed.1 See Nazworth v. State, 473 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Second, it was error for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over a portion of each of the consecutive sentences imposed, rather than over one-third of the total of the consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1983); Brown v. State, 458 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The order denying appellant’s 3.800(a) motion is therefore REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further consistent proceedings.
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J, concur. . Appellant committed the offenses charged on January 23, 1983, at which time Section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), was in place allowing a trial judge to retain jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence imposed. However, effective June 15, 1983, the statute was amended to allow the trial judge to retain jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1983). The 1983 version was in effect when appellant was convicted and sentenced on September 6, 1983.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mobley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…d as Mobley should have raised this issue on direct appeal. See Styles v. State, 465 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Mobley also challenges the consecutive retention of jurisdiction and contends that his sentence is illegal based on Heath v. State, 558 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Heath the court held that it was error for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over a portion of each of the consecutive sentences imposed, rather than over one-third of the total of the consecutive sentences imposed citin…
-
Sapp v. State, 864 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e total years imposed in the sentences on the two counts. Instead, it simply imposed the retention on each count. We find that this violates the express language of section 947.16, Florida Statutes, and case law interpreting it. See Heath v. State, 558 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (reversing denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion, holding that the sentencing court should have retained jurisdiction over one-third of the total of the defendant’s consecutive sentences, rather than retaining jurisdiction over one-th…
-
Ayala-Laies v. State, 16 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1985); Barnhill v. State, 788 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Nazworth v. State, 473 So. 2d 214, 215 & n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). There is authority that this ground can be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Heath v. State, 558 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (reversing denial of rule 3.800(a) motion, challenging the retention of jurisdiction for one-half rather than one-third of the defendant’s sentence, where the statute in effect at the time of conviction and sentence should have b…
Authorities Cited
- Nazworth v. State, 473 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Hayman B. Brown v. State, 458 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)