STATE, EX REL. NORWOOD RHODEN,
v.
L. F. CHAPMAN, PRISON SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE PRISON FARM, RAIFORD, FLORIDA
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.
This case clarifies that a court cannot alter a criminal sentence after the term of court has ended, unless the defendant consents or the alteration is part of a resentencing proceeding. If a defendant requests or approves a sentence modification during the same term, the court can impose a new sentence in a subsequent term.
No, a court generally cannot modify a criminal sentence after the term of court has adjourned. However, if the defendant requests or approves the modification during the same term, the court can impose a new sentence in a subsequent term.
“It is beyond the power of a court of criminal jurisdiction, after'the adjournment o'f the term of court at which a sentence to imprisonment is. imposed upon .one adjudged guilty of felony, to set aside, vacate or annul it or to change it in any substantial respect to defendant's prejudice absent the defendant's consent, unless it is done pursuant to appropriate proceedings for resentence.”
Establishes the general rule that a court cannot alter a sentence after the term of court has ended.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe prisoner, Norwood Rhoden, sought release, arguing his sentence was improperly modified. The amended return indicated that the prisoner's sentence …
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.
It is beyond the power of a court of criminal jurisdiction, after'the adjournment o‘f the term of court at which a sentence to imprisonment is. imposed upon .one adjudged guilty of felony, to set aside, vacate or annul it or to change it in any substantial respect to defendant’s *10prejudice absent the defendant’s consent, unless it is done pursuant to appropriate proceedings for resentence. People v. Sullivan, 54 Misc. 489, 106 N. Y. S. 143.
But where, at the request of a convicted defendant, or at his instance or approval given during the same term at which a criminal sentence is imposed, the court has vacated or annulled its presently imposed sentence, and deferred the proposition of imposing a new sentence to a subsequent term of court, to which the case is continued pending which continuance the defendant is released on bond, the court may, at such subsequent term, impose a new sentence upon the original judgment of conviction, even though such new sentence is greater, or materially different in effect from that’ first imposed and thereafter vacated. See Preston v. State, 117 Fla. 618, 158 Sou. Rep. 135; Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320, 149 Sou. Rep. 369; Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 384, 11 Sou. Rep. 176.
The amended return shows a case of resentence within the rule last stated, so the prisoner must be remanded to custody and it is so ordered.
Prisoner remanded.
Ellis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goene v. State, 577 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1991)…new sentence upon the original judgment of conviction, even though such new sentence is greater, or materially different in effect from that first imposed and thereafter vacated.” Id. at 834, 185 So. at 733 (quoting State ex rel. Rhoden v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 9, 172 So. 56 (1937)). The case at bar is analogous in that the original sentence was affected by some affirmative act on the part of the defendant. The facts at issue warrant a conclusion that this case is also not controlled by the general rule that…
-
Herring v. State, 411 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…urt remanded for resentencing, the trial court was not restricted by the terms of the prior sentences, but instead could impose such sentences as were within the law as if no prior sentence has been imposed)9; State [*970] ex rel. Rhoden v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 9, 10, 172 So. 56 (1937) (“where, at the request of a convicted defendant, or at his instance . . . the court has vacated or annulled its presently imposed sentence . . . the court may .. . impose a new sentence upon the original judgment of convictio…
-
Smith v. Brown, 135 Fla. 830 (Fla. 1939)…atment for pneumonia. Under these conditions, we hold that the case is not controlled by the general rule hereinbefore stated, but is an exception to that rule and falls within the rule stated by us in the case of State, ex rel. Rhoden, v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 9, 172 Sou. 56, in which we held: “It is beyond the power of a court of criminal jurisdiction, after the adjournment of the term of court at which a sentence to imprisonment is imposed upon one adjudged guilty of felony, to set aside, vacate or annul…
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
- Sterling Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320 (Fla. 1933)
- Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1892)
- Preston v. State, 117 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1934)