ROY HANKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1972).
WALDEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. MAGER, J., concurring specially.
MAGER, Judge
(specially concurring).
Although I concur in the majority opinion of affirmance, my review of the appellate record reflects that the trial court may have imposed a greater sentence on the defendant because he availed himself of his constitutional right of a trial by jury. The imposition of a sentence under these circumstances is constitutionally impermissible. See Weathington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1972). While the colloquy between the trial judge, defendant and defense counsel at the time of sentencing clearly reflects a discussion of this proposition, for some inexplicable reason the public defender did not raise this as an issue for appellate consideration. See however Rule 6.16, F.A.R. Without suggesting any preconceived view that this issue will prove to be a meritorious one, it would seem that some consideration should be given by counsel to the advisability of seeking post-conviction relief; if such relief is sought the matter can be fully presented for appropriate treatment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gillman v. State, 373 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…titutional right to stand trial rather than plead guilty. Baker v. United States, 412 F. 2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1969); Weathington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); see also State v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 21 (Fla 4th DCA 1978); Hankerson v. State, 326 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). The sentencing judge’s view that a defendant’s choice of plea shows whether he recognizes and repents his crime has been eloquently rebutted as follows in Scott v. United State…
-
Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ellate review. The sentence imposed herein is well within those bounds. However, a trial court may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant because such defendant avails himself of his constitutional right to a trial by jury. Hankerson v. State, 326 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)1; Weatherington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). It is true that in considering a sentence for a defendant who has pleaded guilty a trial court may consider the plea itself as a step toward rehabilitation. However, wh…
-
State v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ntiary hearing on whether or not the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the State of Florida. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Hankerson v. State, 326 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Weathington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). We express no opinion on the merits thereof. The cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur. . No…
Authorities Cited
- Bruno v. State, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1972)
- Weathington v. State, 262 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)