KENNETH PURDY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question regarding whether trial courts must review aggregate sentences when conducting juvenile offender sentence review hearings. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, and this court affirms the trial court's sentencing decision while remanding for clarification of conflicting sentencing documents regarding concurrent/consecutive application of mandatory minimums and removal of gain time language outside the trial court's authority.
The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative—trial courts need not review aggregate sentences in juvenile sentence review hearings. The trial court properly affirmed its sentencing determination for first-degree murder and did not have authority to modify the previously imposed concurrent sentences for armed robbery and armed carjacking. The trial court must clarify the concurrent application of mandatory minimums and strike gain time language as surplusage.
[1] A trial court is not required to review the aggregate sentence of a juvenile offender when determining whether to modify the offender's sentence based upon demonstrated m…
[2] Conflicting language in separate, contemporaneously rendered sentencing documents may require a trial court to clarify and correct judgments and sentences on remand.
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“WHEN A JUVENILE OFFENDER IS ENTITLED TO A SENTENCE REVIEW HEARING, IS THE TRIAL COURT REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE THAT THE JUVENILE OFFENDER IS SERVING FROM THE SAME SENTENCING PROCEEDING IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO MODIFY THE OFFENDER'S SENTENCE BASED UPON DEMONSTRATED MATURITY AND REHABILITATION?”
The certified question answered by the Florida Supreme Court in the negative, forming the basis for affirming the trial court's sentencing decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Purdy, a juvenile offender, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a substantial term. He also received concurrent sentences of…
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 Demonstrated Maturity And Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
The Florida Supreme Court accepted review of our January 27, 2017 decision in this case to answer the following certified question:
WHEN A JUVENILE OFFENDER IS ENTITLED TO A SENTENCE REVIEW HEARING, IS THE TRIAL COURT REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE THAT THE JUVENILE OFFENDER IS SERVING FROM THE SAME SENTENCING PROCEEDING IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO MODIFY THE OFFENDER'S SENTENCE BASED UPON DEMONSTRATED MATURITY AND REHABILITATION?
The court answered the certified question in the negative, quashed our decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. State v. Purdy , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S321, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 4345959 (Fla. Aug. 30, 2018).
*568Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court following the sentence review hearing on Appellant's conviction for first-degree murder. We also affirm the trial court's determination that it did not have the authority or discretion to modify Appellant's previously imposed 112.7-month sentences for his armed robbery and armed carjacking convictions that were run concurrently with each other but consecutively to Appellant's sentence for first-degree murder.
Appellant raised two other claims on appeal that were unrelated to the certified question answered by the Florida Supreme Court. First, as previously conceded by the State, the three-year minimum mandatory provisions that were part of Appellant's 112.7-month prison sentences for the armed robbery and armed carjacking convictions are to run concurrently. There was conflicting language in separate, contemporaneously rendered sentencing documents on this issue when Appellant was first sentenced. Therefore, the trial court is directed to clarify and correct the judgment and sentences on remand, if it has not already done so.
Lastly, at the sentence review hearing, the trial court found that Appellant was not eligible for gain time on his sentence for the first-degree murder. The authority to regulate gain time resides exclusively with the Department of Corrections, not the trial court. See Miller v. State , 882 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing Moore v. Pearson , 789 So.2d 316, 319 (Fla. 2001) ). On remand, the trial court is directed to strike as surplusage any language in the sentencing documents regarding gain time. Id. ("If, in sentencing, a court attempts to bar or grant gain time, such language has been treated as surplusage or stricken." (citing Shupe v. State , 516 So.2d 73, 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ; Singletary v. Coronado , 673 So.2d 924, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ) ).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.
ORFINGER, BERGER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Pearson, 789 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2001)
- Shupe v. State, 516 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Singletary v. Coronado, 673 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Miller v. State, 882 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Purdy v. State, 257 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)