ROBERT JOHN DOYLE, 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.
A trial court lacks authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with a federal sentence; such an order is merely a recommendation, and the Department of Corrections has discretion over inmate placement under Florida Statutes section 921.16(2).
A trial court cannot order a Florida sentence to be served concurrently with a federal sentence; instead, the order constitutes a recommendation and the Department of Corrections has discretionary authority over placement.
[1] A trial court's order directing that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with a federal sentence is a recommendation only, not an enforceable directive, because the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was sentenced in federal court for bank robbery and subsequently sentenced in state court to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum mandat…
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 Sentencing Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was sentenced in federal court to imprisonment for bank robbery. Subsequently, defendant was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced in state court to life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years. The trial court’s order directed defendant's state sentences be served concurrently with his federal sentence. Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting that the trial court enforce the sentencing order making the state sentences concurrent with the federal sentence. The petition was denied; this appeal followed.
The manner in which an inmate may serve a Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence is by transfer to federal prison pursuant to section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1991). The language of this section invests in the Department of Corrections discretion regarding the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions. Because the department has been given this authority, a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction’s sentence. Instead, the trial court’s order is a recommendation. See Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is discharged.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ng the defendant what in essence is the specific performance of the contract to which we think he is entitled. State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because, under Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994), the trial court cannot order the Department of Corrections to allow the defendant to serve his state time in federal cu…
-
Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ed that the statute indicates the trial court lacks the authority to order the Department of Corrections to permit an inmate to serve his Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence through transfer to a federal prison. See Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The trial court, adopting the state’s response, summarily denied Glenn’s motion. We reverse and rema…1 / 2
-
Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…tence imposed by the state court is not binding on the federal correctional authorities or courts.1 Hence, an order providing that a state sentence is to be served concurrently with a federal sentence is really only a recommendation. Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1993), and cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994). The court in Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), formulated the appropriate remedy to resolve this prob…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)