TILGHMAN
v.
STATE
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 affirmed a lower court's decision regarding a resentencing, holding that a defendant cannot appeal a sentence reduction that is favorable to them, even if the resentencing occurred without prior Supreme Court approval.
No, a defendant cannot appeal a sentence reduction that is favorable to them, even if the resentencing procedure was irregular and lacked prior Supreme Court approval.
“That judgment of affirmance set at rest all questions presented on that appeal.”
Establishes that the prior appeal resolved all issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Tilghman, was convicted and his judgment was previously affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. He later petitioned the trial court for …
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
BUFORD, Justice.
This is the second appearance of this cause before this Court. See Tilghman v. State, Fla., 51 So. 2d 785, wherein conviction and judgment were affirmed. That judgment of affirmance set at rest all questions presented on that appeal. Such questions may not be subsequently' presented to the trial court without application granted by the Supreme .Court to so present same. See Kinsey v. State, 155 Fla. 159, 19 So. 2d 706; Skipper v. Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867, 160 So. 357.
If any error was made by the lower court in resentencing the appellant on his presentation of the petition for relief (absent the affirmative action of the Supreme Court) and in reducing the original sentence by five years, the result was favorable to ánd not against the appellant and, therefore, - he may not be heard to complain. Excessive sentence does not vitiate judgment.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilghman v. Culver, 99 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1957)…n appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed in Tilghman v. State, Fla.1951, 51 So. 2d 785. The trial court subsequently reduced the sentence to 15 years, on application of petitioner, and this order was affirmed in Tilghman v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 555. On February 23, 1954 by habeas corpus proceedings in the United States District Court the judgment was vacated and petitioner was returned to the state court for prosecution, since the state conceded that insufficient notice of trial resulted in de…
-
Tilghman v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1955)…felony. On appeal the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court ,in Tilghman v. State, Fla., 51 So. 2d 785. On application of the petitioner, the trial court later reduced the sentence and this order was affirmed in Tilghman v. State, Fla., 64 So. 2d 555. Petitioner subsequently applied to the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. In these proceedings the State conceded that the notice of Tilghman preceding his trial was insufficient, with the result that Tilghman was deprived of…
-
Collins v. State, 83 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1955)…the procedures adopted by the trial judge in sentencing the appellants were irregular, such error as may have been committed in the premises was favorable to the appellants and consequently they cannot be heard to complain. Tilghman v. State, Fla., 64 So. 2d 555. Affirmed. [*9] DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., concur. TERRELL, ROBERTS and HOBSON, TT., dissent.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Skipper v. Doyle Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1933)
- Kinsey v. State, 155 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1944)