WILLIE ALBERT EATON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant exercising their right to a jury trial is not automatically entitled to the same sentence as a co-defendant who pled guilty.
Appellant was found guilty of possession of heroin after a jury trial and sentenced to five years. His co-defendant, who pleaded guilty, received a mu…
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 Sentencing Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty after a jury trial for possession of heroin and sentenced to five years in the state prison. Previously, his co-defendant, who was tried separately, pled guilty and received a sentence of four months in prison and 56 months probation. The burden of appellant’s main argument is that the judge was bound to give him the same short sentence as was received by the co-defendant. He urges that not to do so will result in a prejudice to him for having exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial.
The sentence in each case must be reviewed separately. There is nothing in this case to show that the sentence is not within the statutory limits of the crime for which appellant was found guilty. See Stanford v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 1. We are not apprised of the prior record of either of these men, nor do we know whether the judge took into consideration the adamant and unrepentant attitude of the appellant. We conclude that no error has been presented on this point. See Weathington v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 724.
Appellant presents a procedural point claiming that he was irrevocably prejudiced by testimony that there was an exchange of money thereby implying that the appellant could have been prosecuted for sale of heroin. The trial court declined to allow introduction of-the money into evidence but the testimony as to the res gestae was not objected to and does not form a basis for reversal at this time. See Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 332.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dennis v. State, 549 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…y the fact that the codefendant received a term of 25 years while defendant received a term of 75 years. Under the principles applicable to a 1968 sentence, disparity in sentencing does not render an otherwise legal sentence illegal. Eaton v. State, 325 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see Stanford v. State, 110 So. 2d 1, 2 & n. 4 (Fla.1969) (“we have adhered to the principle that if a trial judge imposes a sentence that is within the limits defined by statute, the only relief is before the parole authorit…
Authorities Cited
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Stanford v. State, 110 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1959)
- Weathington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)