JOHN ALBERT PALMER, 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.
John Albert Palmer appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a second sentence imposed after his original sentence had been fully served. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a trial court lacks power to impose a harsher sentence after a defendant has fully satisfied an earlier sentence for the same offense.
The court held that once a sentence has been fully satisfied by the defendant, the trial court has no power to amend or increase the punishment. The court reversed and ordered the second judgment and sentence vacated and the defendant discharged from custody.
“Where a judgment has been fully satisfied by the defendant, the trial court has no power to amend it by increasing the punishment after the term at which the judgment was rendered, or even during the same term.”
Establishes the core rule that a court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence once it has been fully served.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalmer was charged with larceny of an automobile and taking personal property without consent. He entered a guilty plea without counsel and received s…
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 Vacating Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, John Albert Palmer, was charged in a two count information with larceny of an automobile and taking and using personal property of another without consent. He entered a plea of guilty without benefit of counsel and was placed on probation for a period of seven years. On January 8, 1962, the trial cou.rt revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of two years in state prison. Defendant filed a motion to vacate this judgment and sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, on October 22, 1963, and the trial court entered an order vacating the same on January 9, 1964, one day after defendant’s sentence had expired. The next day the defendant appeared with counsel and entered a plea of n.ot guilty to the first count. The state entered a nolle prosequi as to the other count. Subsequently, on April 6, 1964, the defendant appeared with counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of two years and six months. Defendant filed a motion to vacate this last sentence contending that the second sentence was invalid because, prior to the vacating of the first sentence, he had served that term in full. He E^ppeals from a denial of this motion to vacate.
Where a sentence still being served by a defendant is vacated on his motion, he cannot complain if he is later sentenced to punishment harsher than that originally imposed.1 The rule is otherwise where the first sentence has been fully satisfied.2
“Where a judgment has been fully satisfied by the defendant, the trial court has no power to amend it by increasing the punishment after the term at which the judgment was rendered, or even during the same term. The ends of justice will not be served by permitting the state, after the sentence of the law has been discharged, to open the case for any purpose and least of all to insert an additional penalty. To permit this would be like punishing the delinquent the second time for the same offense. * * * ” The foregoing statement from 8 R.C.L., *627Criminal Laws, § 247 has been expressly approved by the Supreme Court.3
We apply it here and reverse the order appealed with directions to vacate the second judgment and sentence and discharge the defendant from custody.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1900)
- Smith v. Brown, 135 Fla. 830 (Fla. 1939)
- Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1962)
- Michell v. State of Fla. ex rel. John Thomas Callahan, Jr., 154 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)