ERNEST HARDY PRITCHETT, 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 court held that a motion to vacate a sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule One is not available when the sentence attacked is consecutive and imposed by a different court than the one imposing the sentence currently being served.
The defendant moved to vacate a consecutive sentence imposed by one court, while already serving a sentence imposed by another court. The trial court …
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO QUASH
The State moves to dismiss the appeal of the defendant, Ernest Pritchett.
The defendant moved to vacate a sentence imposed by the Criminal Court of Record under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. 924 Appendix.
Relief was denied in that the defendant was not serving the term sought to be set aside. The record shows that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to serve a twenty-year term by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach on December 13, 1963, and was sentenced to serve another term of twenty years by the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County to run consecutively with the sentence previously imposed by the Circuit Court of the same county.
*186The Court of Appeal of the First and Third District have denied relief under such circumstance. Barnes v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 515; McCormick v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 557. The Second District has held to the contrary on the premise that a court should consider the validity of a sentence imposed to run consecutiyely in that the prisoner is in reality being held under both sentences. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 452.
Although the question was not clearly before the court, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. State, 1966, 184 So.2d 161, held that review under Rule One would not lie unless the consecutive sentences being attacked were imposed by the same court and could result in relief to the defendant.
Motion to quash granted.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Madison Lee Reynolds v. State, 224 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…l v. Wainwright, Fla.1966, 185 So. 2d 701. In the light of its decisions cited here, we do not take our Supreme Court to have approved, in Pritchett v. State, Fla.1967, 198 So. 2d 19, all of the reasoning underlying Pritchett’s appeal, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 185, the Supreme Court having considered the matter independently on ha-beas corpus. See also' Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 441, 521 et seq. (1963) ; Wright and So-faer, Federal Habeas Cor…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. on the relation of the Borden Co. v. Langley, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)
- McCORMICK v. State, 164 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Jones v. State, 174 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Barnes v. State, 173 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)