MUSSA C. BATEH, 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.
In this appeal from conviction under Florida chapters 398.09 and 398.10, the defendant challenged the trial court's authority to indefinitely defer sentencing. The court held that indefinite deferral of sentencing violates due process, but the sentence imposed on April 9, 1957, was valid and deemed effective as of the judgment date in November 1955.
The trial court's order deferring sentence was void and of no effect insofar as it purported to defer sentence. However, the sentence subsequently imposed on April 9, 1957, complies with the law and is construed nunc pro tunc as having become effective on November 3, 1955. The sentence commenced upon completion of the prior sentence in the companion case.
“the passing of sentence herein be deferred from day to day and term to term until finally disposed of and the Court herein expressly reserves jurisdiction of this cause to impose sentence herein at a later date as the Court may deem advisable”
The trial court's order establishing the indefinite deferral of sentencing that was challenged as void
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 30, 1955, appellant was charged in two counts under F.S. § 398.09 and § 398.10. He entered a plea of nolo contendere and was adjudged guilty…
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 Deferred Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County in a case arising under F.S. Chapter 398, F.S.A. It is a companion case to that of Bateh v. State, Fla.App., 101 So.2d 869, both cases having been consolidated on appeal for the purpose of oral argument.
On August 30, 1955, appellant was informed against and charged in two counts with violating the provisions of F.S. § 398.09 and § 398.10, F.S.A., and upon arraignment entered a plea of nolo conten-dere. On November 3, 1955, he was adjudged guilty as charged. The trial court ordered that “ * * * the passing of sentence herein be deferred from day to day and term to term until finally disposed of and the Court herein expressly reserves jurisdiction of this cause to impose sentence herein at a later date as the Court may deem advisable.” Appellant was thereupon "released on [his] own recognizance.” Thereafter, on April 9, 1957, appellant was brought before the court and a supplemental order was entered whereby defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison- for*a term of two years. This sentence was to commence from the date of completion of a sentence previously imposed pursuant to a judgment of conviction under a separate and distinct information (the case being No. 11801).
Appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to indefinitely defer the imposition of sentence and retain jurisdiction of the cause for the entry of a subsequent sentence. It is contended that such procedure violates due process of law.
For the reasons stated in our opinion in the companion case of Bateh v. State, Fla.App., 101 So.2d 869, we hold the trial court’s order of November 3, 1955, to be void and of no effect insofar as it purports to defer sentence. The sentence subsequently imposed on April 9, 1957, *877complies with the law and is construed to have become effective November 3, 1955, nunc pro tunc. Therefore, the sentence imposed herein shall be deemed to have commenced upon completion of the prior sentence imposed by the trial court in the companion case mentioned above.
Accordingly, the cause is herewith remanded for the entry of an appropriate order and commitment giving effect to the views herein expressed.
CARROLL, DONALD K„ J., and REVELS, P. B., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mussa C. Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
-
State v. Valerio, 18 Fla. Supp. 187 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1961)…. On that date, the criminal court of record suspended the passing of sentence from day to day and time to time until further order. On that date the court could have imposed a maximum sentence of one year, but under the decisions in Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 876 and 110 So. 2d 7, Hilton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79, and Rodriguez v. State, 119 So. 2d 681, it could not at any time during the ensuing year impose a sentence which would extend beyond one year from the date of adjudication which, of course, is June 2…
Authorities Cited
- Mussa C. Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)