LAZARO MACIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Lazaro Macias appealed a trial court's order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the court's retention of jurisdiction over one-third of his prison sentence. The appellate court agreed that the trial court's reasons for retention were legally insufficient and reversed, holding that such challenges can be raised via Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
A challenge to the legal sufficiency of reasons for retaining jurisdiction over one-third of a sentence may be raised on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) where the order contains legally insufficient reasons, making that portion of the sentence clearly illegal. The trial court's reasons for retaining jurisdiction here were legally insufficient, being either inconsistent with the jury verdict, vague, conclusory, insubstantial, or unsupported by the record.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is a proper vehicle to challenge the legal sufficiency of reasons for re…
[2] A trial court's order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of a prison sentence is illegal and subject to vacation if the reasons provided are legally insufficient.
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“where the order contains, as here, legally insufficient reasons for retaining such jurisdiction, that portion of the sentence which retains jurisdiction in the trial court for one-third of the prison sentence imposed is clearly illegal and may be vacated on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a)”
Establishes that legally insufficient reasons for retention of jurisdiction render that portion of sentence subject to correction via Rule 3.800(a) motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLazaro Macias was convicted and sentenced to prison. The trial court retained jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence under Florida Statute § 947.…
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 Over Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Lazaro Macias from a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant contends that the reasons given by the trial court in its order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the defendant’s sentence [§ 947.-16(3), Fla.Stat. (1981) ] were legally insufficient, and that, accordingly, the subject retention of jurisdiction should be vacated. We agree and reverse.
First, we reject the state’s sole argument on this appeal that an attack on the legal sufficiency of a trial court order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the prison sentence [§ 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1981)] cannot be raised on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) and can only be raised on a direct appeal. We conclude that where the order contains, as here, legally insufficient reasons for retaining such jurisdiction, that portion of the sentence which retains jurisdiction in the trial court for one-third of the prison sentence imposed is clearly illegal and may be vacated on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). See Anderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); cf. State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 1329, (Fla.3d DCA 1993).
Second, we conclude, and the state does not disagree, that the reasons given by the trial court in its order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the defendant’s sentence are legally insufficient. As the defendant correctly contends, the reasons given suffer from a variety of legal deficiencies which we will not burden this opinion to analyze in any detail. Suffice it to say that some of the reasons given are flatly 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 sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the motion and vacate the order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the defendant’s prison sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)…03); Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bingham v. State, 813 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Thames v. State, 769 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Hampton v. [*82] State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); and Macias v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The Second District in Wright held that the failure of a sentencing court to provide written reasons for retaining jurisdiction, in violation of section 947.16(3)(a), Flor…
-
Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ny time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). A motion to correct sentence is a proper means of challenging the legal sufficiency of an order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence. See Macias v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). “It is established that retention of jurisdiction is a harsher penalty than a sentence for the same number of years without retention.” Harden v. State, 428 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). To satisfy the requirements of sta…
-
Wright v. State, 864 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…55 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), Bingham v. State, 813 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), Thames v. State, 769 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); the Third District’s opinion in Macias v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); and the Fourth District’s opinion in Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Affirmed; conflict certified. ALTENBERND, C.J., and FULMER, WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, SALCINES, STRINGER, COVINGTON, KELLY, CANAD…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Owen v. State, 441 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Anderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Cahill v. State, 489 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)