JOHN SING AND FRIEDA SING, APPELLANTS,
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.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentencing, holding that the defendants must be sentenced under the law in effect at the time the crime was committed, not under a subsequently enacted statute granting the trial court discretion for indeterminate sentences.
The defendants must be sentenced under the law applicable at the time of the commission of the crime, not under a subsequently enacted statute.
“the defendants were sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Sections 921.17-921.23, Florida Statutes (1957), F.S.A., which are adapted from Chapter 57-366, Laws of 1957, whereby the trial court is vested with discretion to impose an indeterminate period type of sentence upon a person convicted of a noncapital felony, rather than under the law applicable at the time of the commission of the crime.”
Identifies the specific sentencing error made by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn and Frieda Sing were convicted of a noncapital felony. The trial court sentenced them under a 1957 statute that allowed for indeterminate 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 Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon review of the record and consideration of the assignments of error, briefs, and argument of counsel in this cause, we conclude that the only material error herein lies in the fact that the defendants were sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Sections 921.17-921.23, Florida Statutes (1957), F.S.A., which are adapted from Chapter 57-366, Laws of 1957, whereby the trial court is vested with discretion to impose an indeterminate period type of sentence upon a person convicted of a noncapital felony, rather than under the law applicable at the time of the commission of the crime.
Section 32 of Article III, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., provides that the re*774peal or amendment of any criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such appeal or amendment.
In Turner v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334, it was held error for the trial court to sentence the convicted defendant according to the provisions of a statute enacted subsequent to the date of the crime; that sentence should have been imposed under the law in effect at the time the crime was committed.
In the instant case it is clear that the parent law out of which Sections 921.17-921.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., were carved was not in effect when the subject crime was committed, hence the sentence imposed thereunder is invalid and it is vacated.
The conviction is affirmed and this cause is remanded with directions that the appellants be sentenced according to law.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…at time of the offense are controlling over different punishments provided by changes in the criminal statute prior to trial, cf., Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301, 14 So. 723 (1894); Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334 (1924); and Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (1st D.C.A.Fla.App. 1959). Finally, it should be noted that Art. 10, Section 9, Florida Constitution, 1968 Revision, provides: “Repeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed.…
-
State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)…court was precluded from imposing its original sentence under an act that did not exist when the crime occurred. Accord Bradley v. State, 385 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). See also Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (invalidated original sentence imposed under a [*999] statute that was not in effect when the offense was committed). Unlike those decisions, the conduct for which Watts and Smith were found to have violated community control to…
-
Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ing statute. Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57 (1900); Turner v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334; Ex parte Browne, 1927, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518; Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.2d 1959, 114 So. 2d 500; Sing v. State, Fla. [*528] App.1st 1959, 115 So. 2d 773; Wood v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 193; Collins v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 271 So. 2d 156. Affirmed. McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ-, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1924)