DARION NORTHRUP CASTLE, A/K/A SAM H. CASTLE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 775.12, which prohibits application of reduced maximum sentences to crimes committed under prior law. The court affirmed the Fourth District's decision that a defendant sentenced to ten years under the 1969 statute was not entitled to benefit from a 1971 legislative reduction of the maximum sentence to five years.
Section 775.12 constitutionally prohibited Castle from receiving the benefit of the reduced maximum sentence because the crime was committed when the ten-year maximum was in effect, and the statute's limitation on retroactive application to reduce penalties is constitutional under Article X, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A statute reducing the maximum penalty for an offense does not apply to crimes committed before the statute's effective date, unless the statute explicitly provides for r…
[2] A statute that purports to retroactively mitigate penalties for offenses committed before its enactment may be unconstitutional if it conflicts with constitutional provis…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“No offense committed, and no penalty and forfeiture incurred, prior to the taking effect of these statutes, shall be affected thereby”
The statutory language of Section 775.12 establishing the general rule against retroactive application of new criminal statutes to prior offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarion Northrup Castle was convicted of violating Section 806.05, Florida Statutes (1969) and received a ten-year sentence of imprisonment, which was …
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 Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
By appeal of a decision rendered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported at 305 So. 2d 794, we have before us the constitutionality of Section 775.12, Florida Stahites (1973),1 which provides: “Limitation of repeal as to criminal cases. No offense committed, and no penalty and forfeiture incurred, prior to the taking effect of these statutes, shall be affected thereby, and no prosecution had or commenced, shall be abated thereby, except that when any punishment, forfeiture or penalty shall have been mitigated by the provisions of these statutes, such provisions shall apply to and control any judgment or sentence to be pronounced, and all prosecutions shall be conducted according to the provisions of law in force at the time of such further prosecution and trial applicable to the case.” This case involves facts which are set out fully in the district court’s opinion. Appellant received a ten year sentence of imprisonment for a violation of Section 806.05, Florida Statutes (1969).
He asks for a reduction of this sentence on the basis of Section 775.12. Ten years was the maximum penalty in effect when the crime was committed, but by the time of the trial the Legislature had reduced the maximum sentence to five years imprisonment.2 For the reasons expressed by the district court, appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the later-enacted lower maximum sentence, and to the extent that Section 775.12 suggests otherwise it would have been unconstitutional.3 See Florida Constitution Article X, § 9. Appellant also asks us to award him a new trial (1) because the police officer who arrested him allegedly testified to appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent in direct response to a question put to him by defense counsel, (2) because the trial court refused to admit into evidence a hearsay deathbed statement made by a young woman who accompanied appellant when the criminal acts were committed, and (3) because certain evidence was obtained without a search warrant. Each of these matters were addressed and accurately resolved in the district court’s opinion. The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal is affirmed. OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents. . Jurisdiction to entertain this appeal is conferred by Fla.Const. art. V, § 3(b)(1). . Chapter 71-136, Laws of Florida (1971). . This statute has now been repealed. Chapter 74-383, Laws of Florida (1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (59 total)
-
Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)…” at all. As this Court has previously acknowledged, the purpose of the “Savings Clause” is. to require the statute in effect at the time of the crime to govern the sentence an offender receives for the commission of that crime. See Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.1976). Here, however, the statute in effect at the time of the crime is unconstitutional under Miller and the federal constitution, so it cannot, in any event, be enforced. The “Savings Clause” therefore does not apply. Even if this state…
-
Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)…rty may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal. See Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983); Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1975), aff'd, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976); Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1978). We find that Schultz’s comment was not “invited” because it was unresponsive to defense counsel’s question. Schultz was the state’s key witnes…
-
McKENDRY v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994)…a criminal statute that affect “punishment,” and Florida’s statutory “punishments” — spelled out in sections 775.082, 775.088, and 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989) — would not be affected by retrospective application. See generally Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976) (Savings Clause applies to statutorily authorized penalties); Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334 (1924) (same). Mandatory minimum provisions are nowhere in Florida Statutes defined as “punishments,” but rather are guides for judges…
Previewing 3 of 59 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)