ALVIN KING, 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.
Florida appellate court remanded for correction of King's sentence, holding that jurisdiction must be retained over one-third of the entire consecutive sentence rather than one-third of each individual consecutive sentence.
Jurisdiction under rule 3.800(a) must be retained over one-third of the entire sentence imposed, not one-third of each consecutive sentence.
[1] Jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must be retained over one-third of the entire sentence imposed, not one-third of each individual consecutiv…
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 intelligenceAlvin King was convicted in 1981 of armed robbery and attempted second-degree murder and received consecutive sentences. The trial court retained juri…
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
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Alvin King has appealed from the denial of his motion to relinquish jurisdiction pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. King contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred when it retained jurisdiction over one-third of each consecutive sentence imposed for his 1981 convictions rather than for one-third of the entire sentence. Accordingly, we remand this ease for correction of Mr. King’s sentence to reflect that jurisdiction is retained over one-third of the entire sentence imposed for armed robbery and attempted second-degree murder. See Mobley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Adams v. State, 435 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Mr. King has also raised on this appeal an argument that the trial court’s reasons for retention of jurisdiction were inadequate. That issue, however, was not argued in the hearing on the 3.800(a) motion, and in fact Mr. King’s attorney at that hearing specifically waived any argument on that issue. Furthermore, the issue could or should have been raised on direct appeal; and on this record, which does not even contain the order retaining jurisdiction, we have no basis to conclude that the retention of jurisdiction was improper. Remanded for correction of sentence.
SALCINES, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 435 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Mobley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)