JOHN WAYNE WALLACE, 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 Wayne Wallace appeals his 50-year sentence for robbery, claiming it is grossly excessive and an abuse of judicial discretion. The appellate court affirms the sentence, holding that absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, sentencing decisions within statutory limits are within the trial judge's sole discretion and not subject to appellate review for excessiveness.
A sentence within statutory limits is solely within the trial judge's discretion and subject to appellate review only upon a clear showing of abuse of judicial power. The 50-year sentence here falls within statutory limits and conforms to proper standards, and the appellate court declines to substitute its discretion for the trial court's.
[1] A sentence imposed on a convicted criminal is within the sole discretion of the trial judge, provided it meets statutory standards and is not a clear abuse of judicial po…
[2] Appellate courts will not substitute their discretion for that of the trial court when imposing a sentence, absent a clear showing of abuse of judicial power.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“absent a clear showing of abuse of judicial power, which does not remotely appear in this case, the sentence imposed on one convicted of crime is solely within the discretion of the trial judge, subject only to the condition that it meets the standards provided by law.”
Establishes the legal standard for appellate review of sentences—only clear abuse of discretion warrants review, and sentences within statutory limits are not subject to appellate modification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallace was adjudged guilty of robbery and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. The trial court conducted an extensive sentencing hearing that included…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
YAWN, THERON A., Jr., Associate Judge.
The appellant was adjudged guilty of robbery. He appeals the resulting sentence of fifty (50) years imprisonment, claiming it to be grossly excessive, the product of an abuse of judicial discretion, and hence illegal as a matter of law.
The sentence followed hearing by the Court of extensive testimony as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the receipt of exhibits, consideration of a thorough pre-sentence investigation report and report of a psychiatric examination of appellant and a study of the facts and circumstances involved in the commission of the crime as well as the circumstances surrounding the appellant prior, during and subsequent to the commission of the crime. It cannot be said that the Court’s decision was predicated upon anything other than a thorough consideration of all relevant factors.
The Supreme Court in Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So. 2d 458, found the law to be that:
“ * * * the legislature has by statute fixed the maximum punishment which may be imposed for violation of the provisions of the statutes, and, therefore, it is within the province of the trial court to fix by sentence the punishment within the limits prescribed by statute. If in any particular case the sentence and punishment imposed thereunder appears to be excessive, that is a matter which should be presented to the State Board of Pardons for the exercise of its power of commutation and is not a matter for review and remedy by the appellate court.” (Emphasis supplied).
In Dickinson v. State, 170 So. 2d 594, this Court held that:
“ * * * absent a clear showing of abuse of judicial power, which does not remotely appear in this case, the sentence imposed on one convicted of crime is solely within the discretion of the trial judge, subject only to the condition that it meets the standards provided by law.”
The sentence is within statutory limits and in conformity with proper standards. We must, therefore, decline appellant’s invitation to substitute our discretion for that of the trial court. Accordingly the sentence is affirmed. McCORD, J., concurs.
BOYER, J., concurs specially.
BOYER, Judge
(concurring specially).
I completely concur with the majority opinion. However, I would not want the last paragraph to be construed as simply lending the presumption of correctness to the action of the trial judge. On the contrary, in my opinion the sentence appealed, viz: the action of the trial judge, was and is eminently correct and fully justified by the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)…ment in the state prison for life or for any lesser term of years, at the discretion of the court. . Battle v. State, 338 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (150 years); Harper v. State, 306 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (130 years); Wallace v. State, 299 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (50 years); High v. State, 284 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (99 years). . As noted by Judge William C. Owen, Jr., in a dissenting opinion in Harper v. State, 306 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), this realization has generat…
-
Winther v. State, 812 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…to line of cases, we have held that where a sentence is within the statutory limit, the extent of it cannot be reviewed on appeal regardless of the existence or nonexistence of mitigating circumstances.” (Emphasis added). See also Wallace v. State, 299 So. 2d 643, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (declining to disturb trial court’s discretionary sentencing decision within statutory limits). With the adoption of the Criminal Punishment Code, giving the trial court the discretion both to impose any sentence between the…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1943)
- Dickinson v. State, 170 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)